5 ms·

Were any of the current directors or new nominees involved in the incident where F-Droid marked Bible and Quran apps as NSFW, hid them from search by default, a

• 9864247888754 7mo ago
  She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse. 21 And so, Oholibah, you relived your former days as a young girl in Egypt, when you first allowed your breasts to be fondled. Ezekiel 23:20
  • frenchy 7mo ago
    I find it funny and sad that this is the sort of thing that people like to bring up as somehow bad and not the part where the Isrealites are admonished for not genociding the Cannanites hard enough.
  • jajuuka 7mo ago
    Yeah, kids need to read this. Totally. /s
    • jjmarr 7mo ago
      In Biblical times, yeah? There was no such thing as birth control. If you get pregnant and are unmarried, your life might as well get over.
      • feature20260213 7mo ago
        The irony is this is an allegory for two cities who "committed adultery" against the covenant relationship with God by becoming bedfellows with pagan authorities in a "lust" for power. This isn't actually about sex just very strong poetic allegory to raise awareness.
      • einpoklum 7mo ago
        > If you get pregnant and are unmarried, your life might as well get over. Not really. And biblical times does not mean people's lives were run according to commandments in the Jewish bible (neither in ancient Judea nor elsewhere).
      • jajuuka 7mo ago
        The act of abortion has existed since 1000 BCE with the earliest being 1550 BCE. Around the estimated time of the mythical Moses. Obviously not as effective, but the practice existed. Not to mention sex isn't one specific act. There are many ways to have sex, even by biblical standards, that do not involve the possibility of getting pregnant.
        • Cytobit 7mo ago
          You do know that 1550 bce is before 1000 bce, right?
          • jajuuka 7mo ago
            I do. I said it's existed since 1000 bce with the earliest case being 1550 bce. As in the earliest record is 1550 bce but the practice being more common by 1000 bce. Did you misread what I wrote or am I missing something?
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  • caaqil 7mo ago
    Setting aside the context of this quoted verse and how NSFW stuff is judged in religious texts, this doesn't address the more important point that OP raised: the visuals of this verse and more extreme ones can be easily found on Reddit and similar allowed apps. So OP's points stands.
    • AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
      The other apps are clients. The apps themselves don't actually contain any content, they're just code. An app that itself contains an offline copy of a book with NSFW text is not the same thing. Meanwhile Reddit is a doubly poor example because even though the service contains NSFW content, it marks it as such, and then the client not only doesn't itself contain it but gives the user a separate opportunity to select against it when using the app to download pages.
      • bentley 7mo ago
        Bible apps often don’t contain the text directly, but allow the user to download a preferred translation on initial startup. That didn’t prevent them from being marked NSFW. And clearly that wasn’t the standard anyway. Before the introduction of the policy restricting religious texts, the only apps F-Droid had marked NSFW were frontends to porn sites, even though the apps presumably contained no sexual content directly.
        • array_key_first 7mo ago
          I would still say that counts as the app providing the content, not users. It's not user uploaded, it's app uploaded.
        • AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
          It should be pretty obvious why porn apps are marked NSFW despite not containing any content. Substantially all of the content they can be used to access is NSFW, whereas it's reasonably possible to access only SFW content on Reddit. Which would also explain the Bible apps without an initial copy. Choosing which translation to download when substantially all of them are translations of the same NSFW text means that substantially all of the users would end up with NSFW content on their device by using the app.
• F3nd0 7mo ago
  My reading is they were simply trying to comply with regulations. It wasn't about what ideas they believed the religious texts were trying to convey, but whether their content met a certain definition set by law. The law could be poorly written, or it could be poorly and over-cautiously interpreted by F-Droid maintainers. But I didn't get the feeling they were acting on any kind of moral judgement or own belief about what's appropriate for children. Does the Bible encourage violence or promiscuity? Not really, no. Does it mention and describe those things in some detail? Yes, absolutely. If that's the kind of content you need to remove from your store, then obviously you need to remove the Bible from your store. Whether that was really the case seems questionable at best, but the stated logic seemed pretty coherent to me.
  • warkdarrior 7mo ago
    Which regulations? F-Droid seems to be governed by Dutch law (see https://commonsconservancy.org/dracc/0039/ https://commonsconservancy.org/dracc/0039/ ). Do they have laws prohibiting all apps with any violence or promiscuity? (As an aside, if they indeed had to follow some Dutch law and remove Bible and Quran apps, maybe F-Droid can be hosted by freedom.gov, US govt's new anticensorship portal..)
  • bentley 7mo ago
    > The law could be poorly written, or it could be poorly and over-cautiously interpreted by F-Droid maintainers. But I didn't get the feeling they were acting on any kind of moral judgement or own belief about what's appropriate for children. If F-Droid were being overcautious, they would have blocked social media apps too. Social media is explicitly the single biggest target of these “think of the children” app store laws after outright porn sites. F-Droid left Reddit and Mastodon clients unmarked. Am I supposed to believe that F-Droid honestly thought the law applied to apps containing only ancient religious texts, and not to social media? Has any other app store interpreted the regulations the same way? And if they truly believed that was a legal requirement, why did they reverse the policy after only a couple days of user complaints?
• tasuki 7mo ago
  > a sincere belief that these apps contained content unsafe for minors Hey I believe that too. If people are entitled to believe whatever is written in those books, surely people are also entitled to believe it's nonsense and actively harmful.
  • bentley 7mo ago
    You’re free to believe that. But the topic here is F-Droid and its board of directors, along with the context that governments are attempting to censor operating systems and app stores. The question is, if you controlled an app store, would you prevent users from making religious choices for themselves? F-Droid is, probably, the biggest and most mainstream free software app store for mobile operating systems, and is trying to drum up community support (“Keep Android Open,” etc.) in response to the new laws. But F-Droid initiated a sudden change in policy—censoring religious apps—wilfully censoring content that’s never been illegal by any reasonable interpretation of the law. Such decisions obviously negatively impact parts of the free software community, and bring up questions about how effective F-Droid and F-Droid’s leaders can be in this fight.
    • asacrowflies 7mo ago
      To be clear no censorship occured. No app was removed or banned. Just recategorized
      • bentley 7mo ago
        The recategorization removed them from search results by default.
• eikenberry 7mo ago
  Even mainstream religions are seen at brainwashing cults by many people and my guess is it was something along these lines. They thought they were contributing to the greater good by keeping people from being indoctrinated into a cult. I don't agree but I've seen many self-proclaimed atheists make such statements.
• behringer 7mo ago
  Ironic as Governments use religion to oppress. In facts it's one of religions primary roles.
• asacrowflies 7mo ago
  I hope so! What a great move! Masterclass trolling of scumbags and no actual censorship.