Comment on [META] Are paid for closer source advertising appropriate?
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 weeks ago
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:
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.
Not sure this actually addresses the issue.
The rules need to be clarified. Again, whats stopping any big corporations shilling their garbage here?
Require an AI SLOP disclosure.
No advertising bot is going to admit to it. The only people for whom failure to jump this hoop will be a blocker, are legit posters.
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.
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?
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.
irmadlad@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago 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.
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.
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 3 weeks 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.
I don’t think getting the rules cleaned up makes things harder - if anything I think it makes things easier.
ken@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
I would like some clarity on general 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.
^1^: FLOSS, no commercial or otherwise proprietary parts or links, 100% human
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 weeks 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 van 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.
ken@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
Thanks for replying, sounds like this is going in a better direction.
Whichever side the ruling falls I think that feedback channel would be very good. Just having a way for a submitter to ask from mod(s) why the submission was targeted might be the difference between a them turning into a great contributor vs either just leaving or starting to play circumvention games.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 2 weeks ago
DM, a meta thread, or even a post in YPTB is always an option, I’m not sure what other options on feedback are sensible/realistically available.
A meta thread posted by a member of the community, and the discussion that followed, is what brought this up to the forefront in the first place.