Comment on Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal I’ve gotten through (I believe) a

EarMaster@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• curbstickle@anarchist.nexus ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I think some people are having trouble understanding what a promotion post is, thus the edit.

  If you are not from that company, you can post about it, have discussions, talk about features in new versions, whatever. If you are from a company trying to promote your own product, that is when the rule applies.

  How does this in any way impact your ability to post about a non-free product?

  original

  • EarMaster@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So everyone just adds a “I’m not working for x” to their posts?

    original

    • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      That would be wildly unnecessary for non-promo posts, and pretty weird for promo posts to be by someone who doesn’t work there.

      No

      original
  • ken@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I think this is even more problematic. Why is it better that I shill for a company I’m getting kickbacks from rather than one I’m responsible for? Besides, this just lead to submarining and people pretending to “have just come across this project, what do you guys think?”

    original

    • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Why is it better that I shill for a company I’m getting kickbacks from (some VPN providers excel at this game) rather than one I’m responsible for?

      I’m sorry, I don’t understand the issue here.

      They would be held to the same rule, and both examples you give are the same. If you work for a company or own the company you are still making a self- promotional post for a company, and the rule applies.

      Judge the message and topic, not the messenger (as long as they are human acting in good faith and not “written with help by AI”, obv).

      Same statement here - if the message is a self-promo post, that is the type of post the rule applies to. This is quite literally what’s being described.

      And I would actually be much more interested in seeing a post from a founder talking about things their company is doing relevant to self-hosters, vs yet another post of “which provider is best right now and what do you use?” or “Company X currently has a sale/launched product Y”.

      You seem to be vastly in the minority.

      I’ll point out that this:

      things their company is doing relevant to self-hosters

      Does not happen in the first place. They make a post about their software, and generally get downvoted hard, the comments become very harsh, and within a fee days we had a meta thread about it.

      While it might filter out some good stuff, I would be all for a ban of any promotion of commercial or proprietary products and services alltogether but allow for self-hostable and in particular FLOSS stuff (where I guess some carve-out or clever formulation could be made to allow for commercial but self-hostable software - either stance on that one seems fine to me).

      So a more restrictive rule?

      This is practically a jump to the complete opposite of what you just said.

      I’m sorry, I’m trying to understand where the disconnect is here, and I’m really struggling to see it.

      original

      • ken@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        If you work for a company or own the company you are still making a self- promotional post for a company, and the rule applies. So if the exact same post is posted by a friend instead it’s suddenly accepted? Why is self-promo meaningfully less desired than third-party-promo if they have similar results?

        You seem to be vastly in the minority. Might be! That one’s framed as just personal preference and not policy suggestion :)

        So a more restrictive rule? More restrictive in one sense (what content and what’s ok to “promote” for) but more allowing in another (you can talk about something even if you work there).

        original

        • -> View More Comments