Selfhosted

Well that would be the description of the community, but the actual rules section doesn't say anything about privacy/control.

So at the end of the day Plex is self hosted (you run most of it) so it should qualify. It might not 100% match the spirit of self hosting it does still meet the definition.

You can argue most Jellyfin/emby installs have the same problem because most users are still are dependent on external services because of things like metadata plugins.

And on the privacy front those plugins aren't any better than Plex. For instance The Movie DB which is the primary movie and TV metadata provider for Jellyfin has a privacy policy that clearly says they will use and share any interaction you have with the site including location and personal information. They almost certainly keep track of what is in your library. They don't have a user account for you that they can use to track across IPs, but if your ISP keeps you on the same IP for long periods of time they have a good idea of what you are watching.

You can run Jellyfin without those plugins enabled but unless you want to build/collect manual nfo files to import that data you are going to have a subpar experience.

Same problem for the **arr stack since they need metadata as well. Some of which go to different providers so you are giving out that information to additional parties (i.e. Sonarr goes to TheTVDB which has a similar privacy policy).

You can configure the arrs to write out nfo metadata and have Jellyfin consume that so that at least you aren't giving away your info to two external parties.

Is really Self Hosting?

I don't really get hung up on the nomenclature and definitions. If you run your services off of a VPS and call it selfhosting, more power to you. No skin off my nose. If you run your services off of a homelab rack that dims the lights whenever you power it on and you call it selfhosting, more power to you. If you're running your services off of an old repurposed, disposable vape unit, and you call it selfhosting, git sum. It's a big umbrella and we can all coexist without nitpicking each other. Gatekeeping is something I don't do, and it gets tiresome to hear others regurgitate the same trope over and over again.

ETA: @CallMeAl@piefed.zip, nice profile shot.

It's self hosting by the literal definition that you host the server yourself.

That it's closed source and sends all kinds of data to another server is an entirely separate (and valid) concern.

As much as I agree with the concerns around Plex, I would rather we didn't start gatekeeping the self hosting community with arbitrary requirements and grey lines around what is and isn't "true self hosting" or whatever. I would far rather we inform people and let them make their own choices about what they want to host on their private devices and networks.

... well, at some point any hobby grows to the point where purists show up.

There's give and take with everything. Is it "self" hosted if you rely on Docker - a 3rd party with control over their own infrastructure? Or hosting it on a Debian OS? Is it really "private" if it's connected to the internet at all?

Are you running the Plex Server application on some hardware so other devices can access the library? Hey, that's self-hosting. That's it.

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules for what is self hosting. Lots of people use cloudflare, which would fail both of your criteria as well.

At least with Plex/cloudflare/others, your overall control and privacy is better and more in your control than it would be with other non-self hosted alternatives.

As long as you're running it on your own hardware, it sure is.

Privacy: Plex clearly records the metadata of what you watch.

Sure, that doesn't really have anything to do with self-hosting, though.

Control: Plex has all of it.

They have no control at all over the contents of your media library. Even if they shut down everything, all your media is still there. They merely have control over a user interface that can be replaced.

It's why I also consider cloudflare against the spirit of the community but I'm not going to give anyone hell over doing things how they want to with their own stuff. Freedom to do things as we'd like is part of the reason why we're all here, right?

If you are hosting software services (proprietary or not) on hardware you control, in a network you control, then you are self-hosting. What the service itself actually is is irrelevant.

im out here wondering why anyone would hand anyone credit card information to watch already downloaded pirated content.

open source to me means open source, not open/paywall/ source.

i prefer my open source free with a lil jank. as god intended.

Please don’t try to gatekeep software or turn selfhosting into a Professional Redditor Larper shitwar like iOS vs Android. Literally no one needs or wants that.

You can criticise Plex for its many shortcomings, that’s valid. Even better if you contribute to Jellyfin so it can overcome its shortcomings. But saying Plex is not self-hosted for puritan reasons is not a good look and smells like StackOverflow and elitist neckbeards; you’re disqualifying people from the community just because you, in your infinite pedantic wisdom, cannot comprehend that they also have valid reasons for using what they use.

By this logic:

• If you use the internet, nothing you access through it is self-hosted, because your ISP dictates if it’s allowed or not. Tailscale, WireGuard, OpenVPN, or a direct port connection are all subject to this. However you can access Jellyfin remotely is subject to this.
• Docker isn’t self-hosted - you depend on Docker Inc, their image registry will be aware of some details about your host, including your IP, which is technically PII and is directly linked to you.
• Let’s Encrypt certificates aren’t self-hosted because they’re an external CA and collect data like your email.
• Jellyfin is not self-hosted, it depends on TMDB and OMDB which are commercial or external.
• Pi-hole is not self-hosted as it depends in many cases on GitHub or external resources for its block lists, and it depends on public resolvers to operate.
• Ubuntu is not self-hosted because Canonical controls everything and has telemetry
• Neither is Windows, Mac, Debian, Arch, or even FreeBSD - they control updates and packages and if they randomly become evil, they have levers on you no matter what. Maybe TempleOS lol.
• Nextcloud is not self-hosted because they control the add-on store, update servers and has telemetry.
• The BitTorrent protocol isn’t self hosted because you rely on trackers and they collect telemetry about your client
• Media piracy isn’t self-hosted because you’re relying on other people to produce it for you
• If you get phone notifications, emails, messages, or whatever else - those aren’t self hosted. Even if you host Ntfy you’re still relying on Apple or Google notification relay servers.

I could go on.

By any stretch of this line of thinking, even the mere act of downloading any software in the first place disqualifies it from counting as self-hosted, because you didn’t build it from scratch and you depend on an external resource, your ISP, a DNS resolver, your operating system, your hardware (microcode, BIOS), your browser, and so on and so forth. The logic breaks down very fast. Don’t.

For me, if I can't use it when the internet is down it's not self-hosting, so Plex certainly isn't for me.

I'm going to shame people for using something that used to work well. This will help me by making me feel superior, and it will help others by shaming them. What a good idea I've had!

Just as much as Tailscale is self hosting. Tailscale is probably more concerning from a security point of view.

I think Plesk is still self-hosting. Nowhere it says that self host MUST be open source or in general, free stuff. Self hosting is host on your premises, or actually host yourself (hosting on a VPS IMHO is still selfhost).

As for Plex, i discarded it from the day 0 and went with Jellyfin directly, never looked back and i am 100% happy with my choice. I would NOT consider something like Plex (with it's enshittification, pricing and overall shady approaches in general) as viable for my setup. But, it's still self-host since you host your media and your service.

But you're not locked into Plex. You have your files already on your hardware and you have the ability to reuse those files for any other service.

By that definition, no. But the Threadiverse is small enough, that I would allow it. Plex follows a similar spirit, but enshittified over the years.

I use Jellyfin btw.

I agree that it doesn't fit the definition in the sidebar, and I don't use it because of those issues. If I'm self-hosting something, it's precisely because I don't want to be sharing data with a company (whether it be my photos or an inventory of my media library) or because I want more control than an external service provides.

That said, most stuff we self-host isn't going to be completely independent, e.g. if you're running anything with HTTPS, you'll need Let's Encrypt or another way of obtaining a valid cert (unless you want to get into the habit of allowing exceptions in your browser, which is not a good idea).

In the strictest sense, Plex does qualify as self-hosting (you're running the application on hardware you manage along with your own media library) - but I'd argue that the compromises it requires are not ones every one is willing to agree to.

If you can't download the software and then run it on an isolated, air gapped network like on a desert island, then it isn't self hosting.

Plex is kind of a weird hybrid where it is self hosted but a part of the backend infrastructure is not. For my use this is advantageous because it simplifies the service for my less technically inclined family members that would struggle with using something like jellyfin.

I look at it as a comfortable middle ground to get people off Netflix and other services for now but I don't have much faith that it will last forever with what plex is doing as a company recently.