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
  • curbstickle@anarchist.nexusM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days 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.

    • Fmstrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      N of one, but:

      • Paid closed source = Advertisement, ban.
      • FOSS without free self hosting = Advertisement, ban.
      • FOSS with self-hosting but some self-hosted features are paid = Still an advertisement, but MAYBE acceptable if we are being lenient. I don’t like it, personally.
      • FOSS with free self-hosting and paid hosted services = Good for them, play on.

      Edit: @Shadow@lemmy.ca had a comment about Tailscale, it’s a prime example of the last bullet.

      • curbstickle@anarchist.nexusM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        There is a sticky up with the currently proposed rule.

        Paid closed source or f/loss with a paywall requires active (non-advertising) participation.

        f/loss that can be hosted and used fully without a paywall (even if they offer their own cloud option, or a donation subscription, whatever) is exempt.

    • Shadow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Personally I’m fine with paid apps here, lots of people use tailscale for example. I think the larger issue is the drive-by spamming without contributing outside of their own promotion thread.

      I like the comment elsewhere in this thread referencing a subreddit that requires X comments over Y days in the community first.