291
[META] Are paid for, closed source projects, being advertised on this community, appropriate? (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
145 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
[–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago (6 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Right ..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (3 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I think the wording is reasonable. appreciate the effort!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •