Even so, it does not follow that this community should provide that commercialization venue. If you want me involved in solving your business problems or monetization strategy, we should discuss terms and rates first.
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 because I don't think "allow all things I like and ban everything I don't" makes for good governance ;)
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 are involved or associated).
Thank your for replying, this is encouraging and sounds like moderation of this community is shaping up.
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 them turning into a great contributor vs either just leaving or starting to play circumvention games (in especially bad cases turning into antagonistic trolls). Speaking from how I've seen those dynamics play out in other communities.
I think that becomes even more problematic. 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? Besides, this just lead to submarining ("viral marketing" is an entire industry!) and people pretending to "have just stumbled across this project, what do you guys think?" or being "just a happy customer".. And to some extent t becomes a game of social status, where well-connected people can just ask their friends to post on their behalf.
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).
Besides of those issues, my personal preference would be to keep the focus on self-hosting. So talk of hardware or shipped software might be on-topic but not service providers. There are plenty of places to discuss cloud-hosting, VPNs, which PaaS is best, or whatnot.
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".
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).
I would also recommend checking out Konform Browser, which has a focus on security, privacy and user control. Currently only providing builds for Linux. Given the browsers you mentioned I think it is highly relevant for your interests and IMO leader in that category (though as dev am obviously biased on that ;))
I would like some clarity on general apparent 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. It would be very helpful to be able to get some feedback on why submission was removed so we can learn how future submission attempt could be improved (or abandoned).
^1^: FLOSS, no commercial or otherwise proprietary parts or relations, no slop or clank in the process
Thanks! Would be great to hear your thoughts and experience after trying it out, if you do! BTW, I keep fishing for feedback not just because I like hearing user stories but also since with no telemetry (or a qa team; lol), user reports become that much more valuable in development, catching issues and better understanding the UX ^^
What does that mean for you, exactly? I know that there is a lot of different ideas out there on how to interpret these results and what "good" means so would be helpful to know what your expectations are to give meaningful answer to such question.
Anyway, I just tried running the test at creepjs.org and this is result: Test hangs at "57/58: Currently collecting: Private Click Measurement complete", with no errors in the js console.
Having compared results with some other fingerprinting suites previously, default settings should give plausible fingerprint corresponding to user base of existing browser. Only Cloudflare seems to hate it: Turnstile on sites in strict mode currently often throw a redirect loop when their troubleshooting tool says all is fine. Is that because fingerprinting protection "works to good" or is broken? You tell me!
I would appreciate an outside and less biased review, comparison or benchmark on stuff like this! Want to try and report back?
"Facebook Container" seems redundant if you already use Multi-Account Containers and set it up accordingly, yes. Other than that it doesn't sound over-the top at all and a reasonable configuration.
Doesn’t Strict mode block third-party cookies anyway?
containerises first-party cookies too, but I wouldn’t need that.
It does do that - if it didn't, there wouldn't be any "multi-account" to it.
With a profile like that you might also find Konform Browser relevant to your interests with more private defaults and convenient toggling of modes and features. https://konform-browser.codeberg.page/
There is some talk about this on the readme ("About") page with more detail on differences in the release notes.
On "AI", tooted about this here. As one example, the "AI chatbot" feature is disabled and hidden by default. If user still chooses to enable it via preferences, stock configuration only has one available provider: localhost where user runs their own app (for example llamafile.ai) locally outside of the browser while proprietary integrations^1^ and telemetry are removed even when feature enabled. I think for all of the AI-features, both the default-disabling and making them work better (or at all) without remote cloud goes deeper in Konform Browser than others like Librewolf.
Another example is about:translations, which when enabled^2^ actually works properly when offline after translation models have been downloaded; they are not bundled with browser.
Let me know if any more questions after reading that!
^1^: Like ChatGPT and others
^2^: "Basic Functionality" and "Just Make It Work" presets enable local translations feature and downloading of translation models.
TailsOS users who care about opsec would never have enabled HTML emails with loading of remote resources and JavaScript execution in the first place, right?
Even so, it does not follow that this community should provide that commercialization venue. If you want me involved in solving your business problems or monetization strategy, we should discuss terms and rates first.
Sounds like a reasonable set of options!
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?
Might be! That one's framed as just personal preference and not policy suggestion because I don't think "allow all things I like and ban everything I don't" makes for good governance ;)
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 are involved or associated).
Thank your for replying, this is encouraging and sounds like moderation of this community is shaping up.
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 them turning into a great contributor vs either just leaving or starting to play circumvention games (in especially bad cases turning into antagonistic trolls). Speaking from how I've seen those dynamics play out in other communities.
Thank you for thoughtful engagement!
I think that becomes even more problematic. 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? Besides, this just lead to submarining ("viral marketing" is an entire industry!) and people pretending to "have just stumbled across this project, what do you guys think?" or being "just a happy customer".. And to some extent t becomes a game of social status, where well-connected people can just ask their friends to post on their behalf.
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).
Besides of those issues, my personal preference would be to keep the focus on self-hosting. So talk of hardware or shipped software might be on-topic but not service providers. There are plenty of places to discuss cloud-hosting, VPNs, which PaaS is best, or whatnot.
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".
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).
I would also recommend checking out Konform Browser, which has a focus on security, privacy and user control. Currently only providing builds for Linux. Given the browsers you mentioned I think it is highly relevant for your interests and IMO leader in that category (though as dev am obviously biased on that ;))
I would like some clarity on general apparent 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. It would be very helpful to be able to get some feedback on why submission was removed so we can learn how future submission attempt could be improved (or abandoned).
^1^: FLOSS, no commercial or otherwise proprietary parts or relations, no slop or clank in the process
Thanks! Would be great to hear your thoughts and experience after trying it out, if you do! BTW, I keep fishing for feedback not just because I like hearing user stories but also since with no telemetry (or a qa team; lol), user reports become that much more valuable in development, catching issues and better understanding the UX ^^
What does that mean for you, exactly? I know that there is a lot of different ideas out there on how to interpret these results and what "good" means so would be helpful to know what your expectations are to give meaningful answer to such question.
Anyway, I just tried running the test at creepjs.org and this is result: Test hangs at "57/58: Currently collecting: Private Click Measurement complete", with no errors in the js console.
Having compared results with some other fingerprinting suites previously, default settings should give plausible fingerprint corresponding to user base of existing browser. Only Cloudflare seems to hate it: Turnstile on sites in strict mode currently often throw a redirect loop when their troubleshooting tool says all is fine. Is that because fingerprinting protection "works to good" or is broken? You tell me!
I would appreciate an outside and less biased review, comparison or benchmark on stuff like this! Want to try and report back?
"Facebook Container" seems redundant if you already use Multi-Account Containers and set it up accordingly, yes. Other than that it doesn't sound over-the top at all and a reasonable configuration.
Almost, but not entirely. For that you need First-party Isolation (
privacy.firstparty.isolatepref: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330467),It does do that - if it didn't, there wouldn't be any "multi-account" to it.
With a profile like that you might also find Konform Browser relevant to your interests with more private defaults and convenient toggling of modes and features. https://konform-browser.codeberg.page/
It comes with a debloated version of Multi-Account Containers, which can also be installed as a normal addon into other Firefox builds: https://codeberg.org/konsortium/multi-account-containers-lite
There is some talk about this on the readme ("About") page with more detail on differences in the release notes.
On "AI", tooted about this here. As one example, the "AI chatbot" feature is disabled and hidden by default. If user still chooses to enable it via preferences, stock configuration only has one available provider:
localhostwhere user runs their own app (for example llamafile.ai) locally outside of the browser while proprietary integrations^1^ and telemetry are removed even when feature enabled. I think for all of the AI-features, both the default-disabling and making them work better (or at all) without remote cloud goes deeper in Konform Browser than others like Librewolf.Another example is
about:translations, which when enabled^2^ actually works properly when offline after translation models have been downloaded; they are not bundled with browser.Let me know if any more questions after reading that!
^1^: Like ChatGPT and others
^2^: "Basic Functionality" and "Just Make It Work" presets enable local translations feature and downloading of translation models.
TailsOS users who care about opsec would never have enabled HTML emails with loading of remote resources and JavaScript execution in the first place, right?
https://codeberg.org/konform-browser/gentoo
See also: Bug 1405971 + Bug 1717671
fix
Let's not forget that Win7 was almost 25% as responsive as Win2k3, which could even hold a candle to GNOME.