[WolfeReader]

To all the people being performatively upset by this, please clarify your position. Do you believe:

1. F-Droid and other software managers should not have special labels or handling for NSFW content.

2. F-Droid and other software managers SHOULD handle NSFW content, but the Bible does not contain this content (such as in Ezekiel chapter 23).

3. F-Droid should not consider religious texts to be NSFW even if they contain NSFW contents.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> 2. F-Droid and other software managers SHOULD handle NSFW content, but the Bible does not contain this content (such as in Ezekiel chapter 23).

Why pick out a tiny bit of Ezekiel when you have the entire book of Song of Solomon?

Anyways, I think the more interesting tension is: What tag or flag would apply to the Bible that does not apply to the Wikipedia app? I have literally used Wikipedia to look up sex positions, which it covers in detail and with pictures.

[48terry]

Yeah, like, there's straight-up photos of penises and vaginas and naked people of all sorts on Wikipedia. It absolutely should be considered a NSFW app.

[watwut]

My understanding of NSFW is that it means "not safe for work" and in the contexts I was in, bible was safe for work. I have yet to see an angry atheist demanding that bibles cant be seen on account of Ezekiel chapter 23 like content. As funny as gotcha of "bible contains stories about sexuality" is, back in real world, I have yet to meet someone who would equate it with erotics.

And yes, you can talk about books and movies in which comparable scenes appear in work too.

[nh23423fefe]

Performative ignorance is much more annoying