this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
230 points (99.1% liked)

Selfhosted

60048 readers
920 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
 

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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone 10 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Partial agreement. My personal stance - it's a bit like porn. Hard to define but I know it when I see it.

  1. first post (ever, anywhere on Lemmy) is an adverting pitch for their brand new project - FAIL
  2. zero effort LLM generated blurb, with no human steering - FAIL
  3. the post is literally an advertisement and adds nothing else - FAIL
  4. the poster does a post and run - FAIL
  5. the post is bot-shaped - FAIL
  6. poster does not / cannot engage with community - FAIL

The whole thing about paid vs free etc...of course, I prefer FOSS and AGPL, but I don't begrudge anyone trying to recoup costs or keep their source code to themselves. Someone else's software licence shouldn't be a purity test IMESHO

As for the whole AI / non-AI thing...too much of that comes off as performative. I think we can all spot slop, just like we can all spot email spam. In 2026, I assume you used AI to help...and you can assume (if I am interested in your project) I will use AI to spelunk your code base (initially) for borks, then dive particulars.

[–] pory@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago
[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 19 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

LOVE the discussion folks, and @breadsmasher@lemmy.world you beat me to it, this has been bothering me all week.

I would love to see a consensus come out of this, maybe do a vote on wording/requirements? Idk, still working on figuring out the best approach.

Just a thanks for exactly the meta threads I hoped for.

As I'm doing things right now, closed source, paid, and the only thing posted is getting removed as spam. Unfortunately a common time seems to be about 7am GMT (side note - folks who are on around that time and can help with modding then, please reach out) and I'm not on for a good few hours at a minimum.

That said, I always read and check, sometimes deferring to read again and check the profile when I have more time later.

What I'm looking for at the moment is:

  • Are people asking questions to see if this is crap being peddled for a profit? Is OP answering? (And thanks again to the folks who do follow up with great questions that dig into this right away)
  • Does it read like a post from a person?
  • How old is the account?
  • How many other posts have they made? Where and what about?

That kind of stuff. Sometimes its super easy to spot (3 posts, same title, price and it being cloud only, etc), sometimes its not and takes more looking.

I think paid products can have a place here, despite them not being my kind of thing, but more as a discussion.

So if there is some degree of consensus on a good rule, I would suggest making a post about it so we can finalize, like I did for the rule 3 updates.

And if anyone has an idea on a useful option for a voting style solution for things like this, I'd love for a DM so I can check it out.

[–] ken@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I would like some clarity on general apparent self-promotion of open source projects as well. As in, points 1-4 don't apply and 5 depends on your definition of "advertisement".

I'm bringing this up because I (once) previously attempted to share a project^1^ I maintain on here. I did take some effort to include some context and discussion points for selfhosters in order to make it more tailored and stay safe on Rule 3. It was quickly removed by mod. I tried reaching out to one of the mods to try to understand what was wrong. They were friendly and said they weren't involved and would forward to the relevant people and since then I haven't heard back. It would be very helpful to be able to get some feedback on why submission was removed so we can learn how future submission attempt could be improved (or abandoned).

^1^: FLOSS, no commercial or otherwise proprietary parts or relations, no slop or clank in the process

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I've only more recently taken over here as a result of the previous mod being overzealous on Rule 3, I commented on a better approach, they rage quit and made me and another person mod. There were quite a few clearly relevant projects that got removed, and obviously yours fit in that territory. You can see the currently stickied post about rule 3 here in the community for reference.

So I agree that clarification needs to happen. Right now I'm applying the rules in the lightest way possible, trying to remove only spam right now because the rules are extremely generic and subjective.

My only 'thing' would be that I don't consider this my community to hand down rules from on high, which is why I have encouraged people to make posts like this one so there can be community consensus.

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

How about a clarification to what Rule 1 actually means. If we are going to abide by the downvote system, and if we are to be cival, supportive, and not be insulting, and if we are all indeed adults, then rule 1should kick in somewhere I would assume.

  • OP: Here's my superduper fantasmgorical app. It's so good it'll make your dick hard.
  • Potential User: Is it opensource? Is it vibe coded? is it a paid for product?
  • OP: Yeah or no or explanation
  • Potential User: Ok, that's not my bag really, Thanks anyways.

Then exit the thread, and downvote if you must, but do it like a civil adult. What good does it do to denigrate and outright trounce another user if you just so happen to not agree with their product or how they do something? Hive mind leads to gatekeeping, and gatekeeping leads to reddit.

If it's AI, it's 2026 and AI isn't going away. It is a safe assumption that at some point in the production chain, AI was used in some form or fashion. But it doesn't give me clearance to rail on the OP and be downright insulting. Just exit the thread and hit the button. No need for the hatred and anger. Let the mod be the mod if need be. How much more civil and adult can that get? There have been a few outright adverts for paid for services. But again, those should fall under the downvote system and not the bullying system.

Does it read like a post from a person?

I think sometimes we forget that others do not natively speak the English language and use AI to help them communicate coherently much like Americans think that there is only America. Gosh I know I would would if I were addressing say a Korean forum.

How old is the account?

If you want to go that route then say so in the sidebar. Something to the effect of new users must participate in threads before unveiling their project. I've been to many forum that had that encoded into the forum itself where you had to participate in x number of posts before you could start your own post.

It's not really that hard to be nice.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Thats not a single item list but a combo, as you know I've only recently taken over here, and as I've repeatedly said all rules are subject to change based on community input. Its only been about 2 weeks now (and a particularly busy week for me this past one) so I haven't posted another yet as I couldn't give it appropriate attention last week.

So let's clarify the rules then, I'm all for it.

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

So let’s clarify the rules then, I’m all for it.

First, sorry to make your job harder. Second, my biggest issue is civility, supporting, and helping. Yes, I can, like everyone else, go low. I don't like to, I'd much rather be cordial and helpful. I am inclusive, not exclusive, I'm all about agreeing to disagree and call it a day. No need to curb stomp anyone.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 37 points 15 hours ago

This is the selfhosted community. Not the Free, Open Source community.

I think you can infer the rules from the name here. The stuff you post must be related to software you can host on your own hardware. It need not be free, nor open source.

Now your point about spam from brand new accounts that are literally just ads on the other hand is valid.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 175 points 20 hours ago (34 children)

I think new accounts that show up to shil their app should be banned. They're not actively participating in the community, it's just spam. There's been a huge uptick recently.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 points 57 minutes ago

This has gotten a ton of votes, and I'm in agreement that new accounts that have only posted about their paid app should be considered spam, and I would say a timed ban (maybe a week?) would be a good start.

Now what about open source vs paid? Devs who made something may just think "oh I should share it on selfhosted!" On their freshly made fediverse account. Does open source get the same treatment? I'd lean toward no, but some of these projects have a paid component as well - paid hosting, or a license upgrade, or whatever.

I think its fine that they want to make some money, and I'm personally more positive toward a hosted option than a paywall, but its a finer point to navigate than just "paid vs open".

That said, I do see a problem with comments on some posts as well - a reply with "spam" and no report is not helpful. The comment itself isnt helpful. A downvote and report is.

So I think a clear and concise set of rules would be helpful, and maybe with a separate list for fully open source and no paid component, open with a paid component, and a fully closed (paid or not, because we all know where the profit comes from in this scenario).

I'd personally lean toward something like an account xx days old to be able to self-promote, and tags for each type of post.

load more comments (33 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 16 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I think its funny that anyone who has closed source software thinks the best place to advertise it is in the federation. I love the fediverse but if it was the fact that it was gnu that I checked it out. I would totally not be here if it was closed source.

[–] homik@slrpnk.net 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That's kind of the defining feature of spam. Not thinking if it's appropriate or good, just sending everywhere because some of it will generate clicks.

"Just delete it" or "scroll past" is not a useful response. Spam is infinite unless it's blocked and/or punishable.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

well that gets to the other aspect of here. its not a large population to begin with.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 83 points 20 hours ago

At it's heart, this is what @selfhosted is meant for:

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.

I would say that members talking about paid/closed products they use (ex. "I connect to this via Tailscale" or "I use company ABC for hosted VPS") to accomplish something is fine, but marketing or job boarding (ex. "Looking for QA on my commercial product") is not.

[–] Faceman2K23@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

if they are obviously bot or dedicated marketing accounts, then no I dont think they should be here.

However, I'm not 100% opposed to closed source/paid software being discussed here, but it should clearly marked as such, with a flair that people can filter out if they so choose.

If someone posts asking about whether there are any alternatives to a paid closed source program, that's a totally valid conversation, and if it turns out there is no FOSS alternative, then we have to talk about paid closed alternatives, find the one that offers the best value and vet for trustworthiness.

The rules say nothing about selling a paid service, but maybe "no spam" should be updated with some clarity on self promotion, so perhaps you can self promote your FOSS service with the appropriate flair, but if you are selling a paid closed service it shouldn’t be allowed?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] placebo@lemmy.zip 32 points 18 hours ago

I'm here for genuine interactions with other people. So I'm not a fan of ads from brand new accounts that will never engage with the community or enrich it.

[–] crunchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 19 hours ago

I don't want this community, or any community on Lemmy for that matter, to become a lucrative platform for advertisers. If someone wants to promote their own product that they made, they should have some credibility as a real person beforehand. Not a brand-new account trying to sell a subscription to an app that's essentially still in open beta.

[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago

I think they should be allowed. However, I wouldn't even date to touch them with a stick from afar in VR.

Plex was the last proprietary thing I ever selfhosted and it's been a perfect reminder.

[–] mereo@piefed.ca 49 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (25 children)

I selfhost because I want to be in control of my data and own it. Closed software is the antithesis of that. They're just bots trying to advertise their software.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] chisel@piefed.social 31 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Advertised? I'd vote no. Discussed? I'm all for it.

[–] Static_Rocket@lemmy.world 19 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Eh, that may just promote a lot of "What are your opinions about x" posts where the first comment is the ad. Suppose it's an open call to list alternatives though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 28 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

On reddit, there is a community called r/progressionfantasy, which is about a specific type of fantasy fiction. They have a rule that self promotional posts (for paid books) must be preceeded by 10 comments, and actual engagement with the community.

This is a reasonable compromise, in my opinion. Known community member who has been answering questions and contributiting to discussions?

I would be okay if they dropped a paid product of good quality and with a reasonable business model (please no vibecoded slop).

But drive by ProductNameAccount users who have never posted on lemmy before a bunch of self promotional posts? Yeah ban that shit.

[–] zutto@lemmy.fedi.zutto.fi 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

With the advent of AI bots trying to flood into Lemmy communities, I don't really see this as a viable option on the long run.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 4 points 14 hours ago

It is possible to detect and moderate them, as long as your mods haven't been disappeared and replaced by people who's job is to accept bribes. And also when we can actually see people's history, since reddit now has an option to hide your history from others because of course.

My usual method is to focus on content, rather than writing style. The AI bots can write a lot, or be brief, or whatever, but they don't actually contribute to the discussion. They just kinda paraphrase and restate what has been said, or when trying to sell a product they disagree and go "Are you sure this isn't an problem?" to everybody in the thread telling them that it's actually a skill issue.

Sometimes they'll be a little better, but it's often surface level stuff that can be found at the top of a google search of keywords.

This also makes it possible to tell the difference between ESL speakers who are using AI to clean up their writing style, and true bots. Since the ESL speakers will actually have something to say, but bots won't.

And then: https://xkcd.com/810/

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 4 points 13 hours ago

I don't really use this community, but I ban a lot of accounts that talk like an AI, use em dashes excessively, and come to this community to promote "their" projects. 🤔

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 31 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (8 children)

No. They should not be allowed, especially the closed source, non-FOSS ones. It'd be one thing to have a FOSS application that has a premium option (such as Frigate), but if it's closed source and you have to pay, they shouldn't be in the self hosting community.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] xyro@morbier.foo 17 points 19 hours ago

If their first interaction with a community is to try to sell their shit, i don't think they're gonna be welcome anywhere

[–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 10 points 17 hours ago

I don't think "selfhosting" and "paid for" goes hand in hand because, at the end of the day, the application somehow will still contact some authentication server or some similar bullshit. That's the contrary of what most people want from selfhosting.

I think this community should stick to actual OSS, free applications, not some semi-corporate bullshit.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

While I'm fine with people wanting to self-host stuff with closed software (this includes Windows and Plex, btw), I personally am not interested in having ads of any kind in the community.

To me self hosting is about controlling your data. While I wouldn't use proprietary software myself for this, I just want to make it clear that I'm fine with people asking for help it advice about it. Just not ads, of any kind.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›