EDIT 2 AT THE TOP AGAIN:
It seems there is some confusion around the term “promo posts”, so I’m making another adjustment for clarity. If this is muddying the waters instead, please point that out!
Self-promotion posts advertising their product requires community participation, or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, your post is exempt from this rule.
I worry a bit that its getting unwieldy, so feel free to suggest options to clean up the language a bit.
EDIT AT THE TOP:
Promotional posts require community participation or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be used in full without payment, it will be exempt from this rule.
Intended to clarify on “paywall” - it has to be open source and run in full locally, no one-time or subscription-locked payment for features, to qualify. Donations don’t count as that doesn’t limit use, while something like Kavita (which has non-free features behind a subscription, despite the base being open source) would not have the benefit of exemption. The rule intent hasn’t changed here, just the wording on the exemption limitations.
I’ve gotten through (I believe) all the comments in the meta thread. So I want to establish a few things, first being a better definition on spam.
Spam is not “I don’t like this and its a paid product” or “I don’t like this and they used AI/LLMs”.
Spam would generally be considered:
- Mass-posting - Posting the exact same post across a bunch of of different communities, rapidly.
- Repetitive Content (aka karma farming) - repeatedly submitting old popular content. I’ll note that this is completely irrelevant on lemmy, this was more of a reddit issue due to karma.
- Bot Activity / AI Abuse - Using scripts/bots/gen AI to automate posts and comments.
- Unsolicited DMs - Mass private messages or chats to users, completely unsolicited
I’d say anything other than that deserves a followup rule, and this definition should go in the sidebar.
Regarding the promotional posts themselves, I think something like the 10% rule makes sense - no more than 10% of the account should be self-promotional material or comments within the community.
I do think it makes sense to include an exception for 100% free/libre open source projects. Partially open projects with a closed (paid) component should be subject to the 10% rule. So what I propose as the rule would be:
Promotional posts require community participation or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & without any paywalls, it will be exempt from this rule.
Questions, comments, clarifications, and harsh criticisms are welcomed in the comments. As a reminder from my intro post, and because of some comments in the other thread, I will mention:
There are people on both sides of the keyboards, so please be respectful of others.
Thank for the clarification.
I have read them, all of them. Your wording “I think it makes sense to…” suggests you’re making a decision. It seems based on community input, but is nonetheless still your decision. As it should be.
I don’t really have an opinion on the 10% rule, I don’t think anyone can help but make that an arbitrary number.
I do, however, think it’s a mistake to lean heavily toward favoring FOSS here because, as I mentioned, there is nothing preventing FOSS applications from making money. Further, it is very difficult to find software that is 100% FOSS through and through.
Ultimately, the line of what is FOSS and what isn’t is what will become a problem.
I’m taking an amalgam of the comments in the meta thread to rewrite for a singular rule. Of course it has my take in it. Which is why I use the word “proposed” - just like with rule 3 which was the cause of drama a few weeks ago, I put my proposed version out there, it saw some mild revision, now its in place.
I firmly disagree. The work is custodial, not dictatorial.
At which time as it becomes a problem it can be evaluated.
That said, it isn’t hard to check the license being used (or licenses if it ties to multiple models), and the FSF has a great definition of f/loss. Can it meet the requirements to be f/loss and someone still make money? Yes.
Does that make a post about it an ad?
No.
I think that’s the important distinction to make. Maybe get rid of the f/loss exception and explicitly call out the paid aspect. If you’re here to promote software that’s pay walled you get the 10% rule.
ETA: I’m fine with the new rules. Just trying to find common ground.
Just to mention, f/loss with a paywall is not exempt per the rule.
Yeah, I understand that. I was suggesting saying the same thing without the exception wording. In the end, it doesn’t stop us from talking about paid software. I use Plex, etc, etc, it’s the promotion that’s the problem… That being said, maybe I’ve misunderstood non_burglar’s complaint. Unless they are a closed source dev looking to promote.
And it shouldn’t stop any sort of discussion - its the promo thats the issue, exactly.
I’m not sure I understand their complaint either. The first comment was about something not impacted at all by the rule, and the second was about floss being hard to define (its not)? Trying to get clarity here but I think I’m missing something with their concern, I don’t see it.
I’m not, I swear!
Jokes aside, your example of Plex is a good one to illustrate that we’re not all at the same ratio of FOSS use, some of us have more or less of each.
Symfonium is another paid example. Amazing app. Even with the new rules we can post about them. With that, I don’t understand your original complaint.
If you’re not pushing your paywalled stuff, it doesn’t affect you, does it?
I’m not, but that shouldn’t be part of this conversation.
Where is the line for what you’re saying is “paywalled stuff”?
If someone promotes Plex, for example? Not allowed? What about deluxe features of homeassistant, which is fully open source, but paid?
To me, this says, if you’re posting something behind a paywall (F/LOSS or not) they’re going to look at your post history. If you’re a shill, it will be removed. If you’re someone who self hosts and just wants to talk about self hosted apps, you’re fine.
Said another way, if all you do is post promo content it’s not welcome here. If it’s a one off then post it.
Look, if you don’t like the rule, make a suggestion to the mods on how to make it better. The spirit here is we all love learning and using new tools paid or not. If you want to share something new to you, like Plex, I’m 100% sure its fine. Post, promote what you love, start a conversation around Plex. The problem is if you only ever talk about Plex and promote it. It gets old FAST and it’s not a community I want to he apart of.
Please dont take this the wrong way - another user had a similar misunderstanding that I’m trying to clarify and understand - what do you think a promo post is? I ask because of your first comment, and this comment here about Plex.
Promotion of a software product? Not sure I understand where you’re coming from.
And now I’m doubly confused why you dont get the Plex reference.
Promo posts are purely promotional by the people who made them - not a discussion post or anything, basically a post thats an ad.
With Plex it would be like the Plex marketing team coming in to post about the new features of Plex version whatever and the $10 discount on the new $750 lifetime pass.
It would not be something like:
Etc.
The rule is only about those self promotional, sales style posts.
So I’m going to go ahead and try to update the rule for clarity now.
This is functionally what I’m concerned about, and your comment above addresses it. Thanks.
Glad to hear it!
Just to say if you missed the “Hi I got made a mod here after I made constructive criticisms in a meta thread about rule 3” post a couple weeks ago, about the only thing not up for debate here would be being intolerant of the intolerant.
Otherwise - any rule or issue can be put up to a meta thread for discussion, including my being mod, at any time.
A rule still needs to be concise enough though, not a link to a discussion thread, which is why these posts are being made to share the amalgamated rule to make sure the community is on the same page before its put into practice.