Issue appears to be rectified now after refreshing repositories. Was probably some neckbeard no-lifer who wanted to "epicly rek" Religious folk.
F-Droid has appeared to have been labelling Bible Apps as "Not safe for work"
Issue appears to be rectified now after refreshing repositories. Was probably some neckbeard no-lifer who wanted to "epicly rek" Religious folk.
27 Comments
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 298d
Would any book that contains these kinds of passages not be marked NSWF? Isn’t it kind to alert readers before they unknowingly stumble into something they may prefer to avoid? Or are you pretending these parts don’t exist in the Bible?
::: spoiler NSFW sexual content
“When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”
Ezekiel 23:18-21
:::
::: spoiler NSFW graphic violence
…they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their territory.
Amos 1:13 :::
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 298d
It's well-known that Christians don't read their bibles.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 298d
So should we also make Wikipedia NSFW too?
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 298d
It would be fine to have an option that only reveals certain content when a button is clicked. I haven’t checked: Are there graphic depictions of intercourse or murder on Wikipedia?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 297d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitechapel_murders
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 297d
Yeah, that page has passages that could use content warnings.
lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 298d
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 298d
It doesn't even say that.
Matthew 28:19-20 ESV
rowinxavier@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 298d
I think it is a reasonable classification. There are adult themes which include sexual violence, sex with children, murder of essentially every type, slavery, and genocide. The stories are full of difficult material that a child should not be exposed to casually. If you say that kids should not be exposed to R rated movies because they lack the context to understand what is happening and it could therefore be harmful then the same has to apply to the bible. It also should apply to basically every religious text given the various awful ways women are treated, especially in the Abrahamic faiths.
Should the apps be banned? No, not at all. Should they be censored? No, people should be able to look at what they want and read it, even if it is full of difficult material. But should it show up if you have selected to not have adult material shown? Well, if that filter is to mean anything then it should block porn and the bible for the same reason.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · -1 pts · 298d
Shouldn't religious texts perhaps have their own category? So someone can see religious apps but won't be seeing porn
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 298d
Sure, I'd be all for having choices of filters. Violence, sex, religion, what have you. Regardless though, you'll have to face the fact that given how varied the contents in the Bible are, it's likely to trigger multiple filters.
rowinxavier@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 297d
Absolutely, I would be keen on a separate category, but if not then maybe rebrand the category to "Adult themes"or similar.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 298d
It is all about porn, violence, gore, racism that is part of the bible. Why should any book be excempt under the law?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 297d
The Bible isn't all about porn, violence gore or racism.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 297d
No, not in all parts. But it does contain those parts. So either provide a pre-censored version of it, or fall under the "decency" laws. Just like everybody else.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 298d
Incest, murder, genocide, gore, etc etc. How and why was the tag removed?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · -2 pts · 298d
So we should make Wikipedia NSFW as well?
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 298d
I would have no problem with parts of it being marked NSFW, if that's what you're asking.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 298d
Looks like you never actually read the bible. I did. Twice. And i can confirm that if you put the same unit of measure to it that conservatives demand of other media, a ban of the bible is 100% valid.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 297d
What's this got to do with conservatives?
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 297d
Conservatives are usually the one censoring books.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 297d
Depends on where you are in the world and what time and place
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 297d
Tell me a civilized place where progressive powers censor books.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 296d
F-Droid, an Atheist zealot attempted to censor the Bible Conservatives aren't censoring books in the United Kingdom. In the People's Republic of China, media is censored. The Republic of Ireland banned books at certain periods of time Books were banned in the USSR. In the United Kingdom, some left leaning forces attempted to ban Of Mice and Men from the curriculum.
I cannot answer your question fully though as the term "progressive" is subjective. My point was arguing against US-Centralism, eg, "We should limit the Bible on F-Droid globally because a bunch of conservatives in the USA are banning books and they also identify as Christian".
By all means, fight the battle in the USA, a lot of the book censorship was stupid, and banning the Bible from a library under conservative censorship rules makes a good point, but keep that battle off F-Droid.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 296d
That is not my problem.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 296d
Then why is it relevant?
Geodad@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 298d
mkmusic@torishiro.com · 0 pts · 297d
I know that there are certain parts in the Bible which are indeed graphic. But:
You don't allow your child to read their Bible on their own. No, they're still young, so they need a guardian to help interpret it and guide them which passages to read.
This logic falls apart when you consider apps like Wikipedia, which even have visual content.
At least they've rectified the error, :ablobcatheartsqueeze:
@christianity@lemmy.world @Flax_vert@feddit.uk
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 297d
It's more of an issue that you'll be forcing Christians to enable NSFW to see it, which may bring up offensive materials.