This Anti-Feature is applied to an app that contains content that the user may not want to be publicized or visible everywhere. The marked app may contain nudity, profanity, slurs, violence, intense sexuality, political incorrectness, or other potentially disturbing subject matter. This is especially relevant in environments like workplaces, schools, religious and family settings. The name comes from the Internet term “Not safe for work”.
What Bible reader wants that fact hidden? That is the opposite sentiment of everyone I've actually seen. That honestly makes it seem even more illogical.
It's not just Islamists, either. Any religion can become extremist and support all sorts of internationally illegal crimes.
Evangelism is a danger to kids, and unfit for the workplace too. We should not encourage young Americans to indoctrinate themselves with nonsense propaganda that encourages killing.
I feel like you didn't read the discussion at all? One of the apps does not contain any Bible verses, it is used to track which books, chapters and verses you've read.
Does it matter? F-Droid is a distributor, they're allowed to reject apps they consider controversial or outside their wheelhouse. The person who spoke up was correct, the ruling is consistent and the definition of NSFW content makes sense to me. Evangelism isn't exempted from being called and labelled as slopware.
These people can perfectly well distribute their apps without F-Droid's help, they're not refusing to sign their app or somesuch.
The consistency is that the presence of a Reddit app or a Youtube app per se doesn't reveal too much about the device owner.
A Bible reader/tracker app, a Quran learning app... now that's where you enter a more sensitive area, religious beliefs are among the higher protected classes of data under GDPR.
And now there's a few potential threat sources: family members snooping through their relative's phones, border control snooping through phones (remember, apostasy is a crime punishable by death in some Muslim countries), or the worst one, random ad SDKs pulling in and distributing lists of installed APKs and pushing these to the mothership, where the data can then be hoovered up by anyone willing to pay for it, with the same result [1].
I wish I didn't need to write this, but it's not just some random Middle East theocracy going for its citizens as usual for the crime of not believing into the god of choice, we're seeing people being threatened for their faith (or lack of it) right in the United States of America, right now.
No, there are plenty of other examples (just in games alone) to write off as a mere one-off oversight. It certainly seems targeted since they've targeted religious apps that don't even have any explicit content.
For an app store that is supposed to advocate for freedom this is disturbing and very off-putting. The answer is not submitting a PR to enable even more censorship.
Who is "they" here? The person who opened the PR? The person who wrote the NSFW definition? The moderators correcting the mistakes?
> The answer is not submitting a PR to enable even more censorship.
It's not censorship, you can still install the apps to your phone. You just cannot promote them to impressionable audiences like children, or pretend it is appropriate conduct for something like the workplace. Your same logic could be used to argue that porn apps shouldn't be labelled as NSFW, or that gore and shock content is free expression.
F-Droid is not (and will never be) compelled to host the tools of evangelism. You don't need F-Droid's help to reach your audience. I'm a proud F-Droid user and defend their stance wholeheartedly.
"You just cannot promote them to impressionable audiences like children" - the fact that child has device is problem not the fact that device can access information.
