they still are, there’s a notice under the search field that informs you about apps not shown
Not really, Quran too
Feel free to edit the text to: “contains mature or sensitive themes”, right?
1 Like
I may be misunderstanding something or don’t have the right version. Currently, if I download the F-Droid app and search Bible, nothing shows up unless I go to the settings and enable the NSFW filter. I guess I would not call this searchable by default.
I’m sorry, I may be mistaken here too, but the original merge request only included Bible apps. There was discussion about Koran apps as well, but the decision was made to address that leader, and it was unclear if the Koran apps reached the F”-Droid bar” (whatever that may be) for the NSFW filter.
Yes, I think changing the title could improve the situation somewhat.
3 Likes
Something does appear, under the search bar
That’s how it works
But you can choose to see such apps, in Settings. It’s just that some clients might choose to not, by default.
1 Like
That screenshot of the army of bible apps is priceless. We should go ahead an make dozens of apps for every book tha’s out there and add all of that to F-Droid. That would not damage the reputation of a software curator whose whole security model is based on volunteers auditing its collection, oh no the NSFW tag will.
-Ok Alice today’s codebase to sift through for potential malware is bible app number 666.
-Another bible app? When are we going to get to that new email encryption one, Bob?
-When god no longer forbids, Alice, when god no longer forbids…
1 Like
It’s rather unconscionable this was ever approved and frankly disqualifying for a maintainer. It fails to meet the plain meaning of “NSFW”; it is completely opposite of “Promot[ing] ■■■■ and violence”; and the technical definition of essentially things users might be ashamed of using is both a terrible definition and still completely inapplicable here. This seems unjustifiable for any reason but bigotry.
3 Likes
All. Why are we flaming both here and on Gitlab? This is a tag, and it is understandable that it needs looking into, which is what is happening already. Flaming and bad naming F-Droid or anyone else, and pulling different aspects without knowing what and how things happen is just causing wrong sentiments being rocked.
F-Droid is run by volunteers and everyone does more than their best to get things done. All of us should cooperate and put the points in a way it helps, and not makes others flame up too.
If this was some proprietary application, they will not even bother to revert. F-Droid being individuals and volunteers as such, does more than that.
I am not here to advocate, but requesting others to be calm and take a constructive approach for this. There is no need to make things run in a different road.
2 Likes
Renaming the NSFW anti-feature alone wouldn’t fix the real issue. The problem isn’t the label — it’s the idea that religious or historical texts are treated as “not safe for work” in the first place.
Only about 1% of the Bible could even be considered violent or explicit, depending on interpretation. Flagging entire apps based on such a tiny fraction is disproportionate and inconsistent — especially when historical or educational apps with similar content are not treated the same way. Moreover, these passages are descriptive, not promotional — they don’t encourage or glorify violence or immorality, but reflect historical context and moral lessons within the text.
So even with a new name, the policy itself still needs correction and clearer limits on what truly qualifies as NSFW.
If the current NSFW policy were applied strictly and consistently, well over half of all apps on F-Droid would probably have to be flagged — including games, news, and educational content.
That clearly shows the policy’s definition is too broad and impractical in its current form.
Since F-Droid also receives public research funding from the EU’s Horizon Europe programme, I believe it’s especially important that its policies remain neutral, consistent, and respectful toward all cultural and religious backgrounds.
Refining the policy toward greater neutrality and consistency would help prevent such misunderstandings and maintain trust — both from users and funding partners.
6 Likes
but it’s okay if we treat them as “mature or with sensitive themes” ? I ask again because most reactions are about the label name, afaik
which ones?
sure, list those that include at install time as such, we might have missed some
we keep seeing this rhetoric and sounds like some mafioso speech, akin to “You’ve got a nice (noun) here. It’d be a shame if anything were to… happen to it.” 
1 Like
I personally would still not find it okay to flag religious text apps this way.
But to be constructive: yes, it could be acceptable if the label works purely like other anti-features — for example, like the one marking apps that don’t use open network access — meaning it doesn’t affect visibility or search results.
The main problem right now is that NSFW-flagged apps are hidden by default, and users must explicitly enable them in settings to even find them.
That makes it feel more like a content warning or restriction, not a neutral classification.
Even if renamed to something like “contains sensitive themes,” many people would still find it offensive or inappropriate when applied to something like the Bible, which is widely considered a foundational text rather than explicit Material.
Apps like Wikipedia or Kiwix also contain historical and educational content about wars, genocide, and other violent events, yet they are not hidden or flagged — which clearly shows how inconsistently the current policy is being applied.
Or this game is too not flagged:
What was especially offensive, though, was that there was a commit specifically adding this flag only to Bible apps, instead of applying it more broadly across different religious and historical apps. Even if the policy were to include all such content, it would still be debatable — but at least it would appear consistent. Targeting just one group of apps made it feel unfair and disrespectful, which is ultimately what caused the strongest reaction.
9 Likes
In this case, all Wikipedia apps should also be flagged as inappropriate. They contain both textual and visual content about subjects like slavery, nudity, and brutality. Furthermore, telling people who want to view apps related to religious texts “you must consent to viewing pornographic content” is highly objectionable.
This app doesn’t have an inappropriate flag, even though it explicitly states that it contains inappropriate content. I think filtering this should be easier than filtering religious texts. However, I believe the current policy is being implemented deliberately and biasedly.
Wikipedia “Critical reception” section:
The game’s sensitive handling of its eroge elements, instances of soft core erotic imagery on the relevant forks which were integral to its narratives, was also praised (it was also noted that as “adult content” is removed the game can be played with these scenes replaced, without the cost of losing much characterization and plot development).
3 Likes
I would like to remind the F-DROID Board of Directors and the Commons Conservancy that freedom of religion and expression are constitutionally protected human rights and freedoms (See European Convention on Human Rights Article 9, 10 and the First Amendment). Any attempt to ban, censor or restrict distribution indirectly or directly because of the contents of any religious texts is a violation of said rights. It is also in violation of the Establishment Clause where F-DROID is attempting promotion of secularism/atheism. In general, this is viewpoint discrimination.
To restrict such freedoms on F-DROID:
- Become a private entity and stop receiving any and all public funding.
- Prove that said restrictions are legally necessary and proportionate in the EU/US.
F-DROID being an NGO funded partially by the government and/or public funding in any way does not give them an exception to act as a private entity which could otherwise have the freedom to chose what they can distribute in the first place.
There is legally established precedent that you cannot do this, at least in the US.
I propose that F-DROID rollback all changes affecting religious text. Failure to do so will not only damage the reputation of F-DROID, affect sources of funding, but also invite a lawsuit seeking an injunction and potential damages in multiple jurisdictions.
9 Likes
You are right. But I’m not nitpicking Bible and Quran. Most apps and books won’t tell you that you should be killed if you work on weekend or you should kill your family and friend if they ask you to believe other god.
So do many ■■■■ artworks. They are not bad but we need to tag them properly.
It’s one thing to describe war, slavery, or ancient civilizations. It’s another thing to promote it. A book describing what Nazi did is OK but if it describes Hitler as “righteous” or “full of mercy” it would be definitely something we need to flag. Of course such contents have their value and can be used for education but “Parental accompaniment required for younger audiences.”
Neutrality means that all NSFW contents are flagged equally. We shouldn’t ignore Bible or Quran just because they are religious and cultural content.
KSRE has an opt-in option in the app for NSFW content. The NSFW content is disabled by default. It would be good if Bible and Quran apps can also add such an option so that NSFW content is disabled by default. Then they won’t be flagged.
3 Likes
As I said before, this is so broad as to be useless - there are so many apps that contain some of the above, from games to news apps, wikipedia, reddit, 4chan, etc. In many of those cases, the “potentially disturbing subject matter” is way more frequent/intense and way more central to the app than in religious text apps. Furthermore, even though news/wiki apps
I think renaming it would be a good start, but I also think it is currently overly broad and vague. Regardless of how you name this category, if someone sees a warning about “violence” and “intense sexuality”, and a possibility to filter out apps containing such content, not a single soul would expect that apps for religious texts, wikis, news, etc would be filtered out, even though those apps strictly speaking meet the definition. People would instead expect games/other apps with graphic depictions of violence and apps featuring sexual content to be filtered out, rather than apps containing dry textual descriptions of such content.
5 Likes
Every word we add or remove can always be dissected that “but but it does not apply because this particular thing is not exactly mentioned”
One could say that users seek that content there, it’s not included when you install the app or open it
1 Like
This is plain and simple bullshit, no court would hold up that “requiring people to click a couple of options if they do want to see religious content” is a form of censorship
As I understand it, there is precedent that NGOs cannot discriminate, do religious persecution, etc, but I don’t think there’s precedent to say that NGOs cannot choose not to distribute religious texts - there is a large and obvious difference between “censorship” or “restricting distribution” and “choosing not to distribute”
1 Like
also, we still literally distribute it 
2 Likes
since we get this reaction for most anti-features, I’ll say again: anti-features are there to inform the user, not to punish anyone
2 Likes
Most bible apps don’t contain such content either, but offer up lists of bible translations and other texts for the user to download.
Games with violent content obviously do include the violent content rather than allowing users to “seek that content”
The sole purpose of a news app is to read the news, some of which will include violence, intense sexuality, prejudice, etc - such content is not something that the user would need to seek out, but rather something that will just pop up every now and then
I don’t think this distinction makes sense, and I don’t think it makes the point you’re arguing for
4 Likes
All in all, I don’t think it’s bad if religious texts are marked up with an antifeature stating that there is some violent content (or something along those lines), but I personally feel it’d be a shame if said antifeature is filtered out by default, and I think the current wording is both confusing to users and too vague to be useful, and too broad to be consistently applied
1 Like