this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
82 points (98.8% liked)

Selfhosted

40173 readers
680 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
82
Do you have any advice, recommendations, and/or tips for someone wanting to host a public/non-personal Lemmy instance? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

If you think this post would be better suited in a different community, please let me know.

Topics could include (this list is not intending to be exhaustive — if you think something is relevant, then please don't hesitate to share it):

  • Moderation
  • Handling of illegal content
  • Server structure (system requirements, configs, layouts, etc.)
  • Community transparency/communication
  • Server maintenance (updates, scaling, etc.)

Cross-posts

  1. https://sh.itjust.works/post/27913098
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Not all web traffic, just the images to check. With any decent bandwidth, it shouldn't be an issue for most. It also setup in such a way as to not cause a downtime if the checker goes down.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It also setup in such a way as to not cause a downtime if the checker goes down.

Oh? Would the fallback be that it simply doesn't do a check? Or perhaps it could disable image uploads if the checker is down? Something else? Presumably, this would be configurable.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

It stops doing checks. Iirc you can configure it yes

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

With any decent bandwidth, it shouldn’t be an issue for most.

It's not only the bandwidth; I just fundamentally don't relish the idea of public traffic being directed to my local network.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You don't get public traffic redirected. It's not how it works

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, that was poor wording on my part — what I mean to say is that there would be unvetted data flowing into my local network and being processed on a local machine. It may be overparanoia, but that feels like a privacy risk.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago

I don't see how it's a privacy risk since you're not exposing your IP or anything. Likewise the images are already uploaded to your servers, so there's no extra privacy risk for the uploader.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Not all web traffic, just the images to check.

Ah, yeah, my bad this was a lack of clarity on my part; I meant all image traffic.