this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
179 points (97.9% liked)

Selfhosted

60071 readers
628 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
179
[META] Are paid for, closed source projects, being advertised on this community, appropriate? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by breadsmasher@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
137 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A number of brand new accounts have popped up shilling their paid for applications.

Is this within the rules? Is the community happy with this? Could mods clarify this in the rules?

Either allowing advertising, or banning it entirely.

my point is - there is a difference between an open source homegrown project that might be useful, vs closed source paid for projects from brand new accounts

some replies are misunderstanding, somehow.

I am against

brand new accounts who:

  1. first post is a brand new project
  2. project is closed source
  3. project will cost money
  4. is asking for free testing
  5. the post is literally an advertisement
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Not sure this actually addresses the issue.

  1. Ban brand new accounts from posting paid for closed source products where the clear goal is to make money
  2. Allow any posts for open source, free solutions where the developer is open and honest about their project
  3. Require an AI SLOP disclosure.

The rules need to be clarified. Again, whats stopping any big corporations shilling their garbage here?

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Nothing before I started moderating, and as of now nothing either.

Again, I'm sharing what I'm doing to check and see if its blatant spam and nothing more. Anything else would mean a rule change, which is always open for discussion from the community, as I've mentioned.

I'll point out #2 has also resulted in numerous reports, including for #3.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

To be very clear. I am raising brand new accounts who have only ever interacted with this community to post their paid for product.

Not discussing the product in a wider conversation. Literal first post being “I made a product. Pay me for it”.

I dont think that should be allowed.

What if plex started posting here with their new paid for products?

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Personally? I have zero interest in that happening. As I've said before, I consider myself the janitor not the dictator.

It would be selfhosting related, of primary relevance as a lot of folks use it still despite.... everything plex has done in the past several years, and I would not be able to consider it a rule violation as of now.

There would need to be a new rule or a change to the existing.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Right ..

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

So lets get specific on rules, and break it down and turn your post into one:

  • Closed source commercial applications may not be posted from an account less than 7 days old or they will be removed.

Now what about mostly open but with a paywall on features (so partially closed)?

I'm happy to have a rule change here, I just think it needs to be a clear rule and community supported. If you'd like I can make it a pinned post to be voted/commented on.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I think the wording is reasonable. appreciate the effort!

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I tweaked things a bit to be more about percentage of comments/posts, which I think may be a better approach, in a newly posted sticky so we can memorialize the change. Its not implemented yet, and we can go back to an age-of-account approach, but I think % participation may make more sense.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

participation as a requirement is a good idea, actually providing first before trying to take