Comment on [META] Are paid for closer source advertising appropriate?

<- View Parent
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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.

original
Sort:hotnewtop