@fdroidorg's decision to label religious texts as NSFW is outrageous and insulting to billions of people who believe in those texts. I urge F-Droid to reconsider their decision and focus not only on free and open source software but also freedom of religion and opinion. Otherwise it will eventually lose the appeal and will only be a platform of a narrow group of people.
Mark Bible apps as NSFW: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/merge_requests/27861 (https://archive.is/gypuK)
Mark Quran app as NSFW: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/merge_requests/28160 (https://archive.is/TYzLb)
@muntashir Aaactually I kinda agree with the labels? Based on either literal deffinition or connotation, do they not fit the deffinition?
In the discussion, this description was given: "nudity, profanity, slurs, violence, intense sexuality, political incorrectness"
I can't sprak to the Quaran (have not read it or had cultutal exposure), but it's well known that the bible discusses political rebelion, violence, sex, and nudity. The age of the work or its significance isn't relevant here, only the content.
Plus, religion itself is often a contentious issue that is considered inappropriate for workplace talk. In a literal sense, these are NSFW.
Why should being labeled a religious text give it an exemption from normal classification?
@Epic_Null @muntashir tagging as NSFW isn't that big of a deal but default behaviour of hiding results with that tag is. If it wasn't for that thread I wouldn't have known that some search results get hidden. It's bad default behaviour. Big tech is enough patronizing as it is, we don't need that here as well.
@emaksovalec @Epic_Null After going through their documentation, I feel like the AFs in F-Droid possess some inherent ambiguities. They write:[1]
> When reviewing apps to accept, F-Droid takes the user’s point of view, first and foremost. We start with strict acceptance criteria based on the principles of free software and user control. There are some things about an app that might not block it from inclusion, but many users might not want to accept them.
Then in the next paragraph:
> Anti-Features are organized into “flags” that packagers can use to mark apps, warning of possibly undesirable behaviour from the user’s perspective, often serving the interest of the developer or a third party.
It appears this depends exclusively on the definition of “users”. Who are the users? I've always thought that they have classified users to be the ones interested in free and open source software and have no other expectations or obligations from F-Droid including but not limited to censorship and movements unrelated to FOSS. But they go on and say:
> F-Droid always marks Anti-Features from the user’s point of view. For example, NSFW might be construed as similar to a censor’s blocklists, but in our case, the focus is on the user’s context and keeping the user in control.
That extends the definition of users above and filters out a lot of their existing users (as well as funding sources).
However, NSFW appears to be the only documented AF that clashes with the traditional users.
I've always thought that they have classified users to be the ones interested in free and open source software and have no other expectations or obligations from F-Droid including but not limited to censorship and movements unrelated to FOSS.
There, I think, is the key issue.
I would say most users have higher expectations, even if they don't realize it. For example, you would expect that a FOSS text editor isn't falsely advertised as a game. That the software they have in their central system is clear of scams and safe to navigate. That their most highly reccomended apps are not political advertisements for insert party here.
One of the expectations that comes with that is "I do not want to be suddenly looking at porn or gore."
There are two directions I can go from here. I will go technical first because it leads into the other one.
(pretend picture went here)
Do you see this screen? It's a very simple, straight forwars screen that allows you to add repositories.
Why is this here?
Because the official F-droid repository is not, should not, and cannot be the end all be all source to meet all user needs. That is NOT in the spirit of FDroid, and honestly? The expextation that it is this is something F-Droid has a role in fighting.
The initial repository is just that: the initial repository - the introduction. Where users step into the world of F-Droid for the first time. The first impression.
The users of the F-Droid repo are going to be the most diverse and the least tuned in because they're going to be the most new.
But there's another part to this.
F-Droid isn't "faceless" or "neutral", nor should we ask them to be.
The main reposirory is managed by someone. Well, someones. Those someones will have goals and values. Many will line up with ours (yay!), some will not.
As much as I deserve to curate the policies for my stuff, they deserve to curate the policies of their stuff.
My phone, my rules. Their repo, their rules. If we have enough repos, those two statements will not be in conflict.
@@Epic_Null @emaksovalec You're talking about the F-Droid client. I am talking about the F-Droid repo. These are very different things, and the audience for them could be also very different.
If I thought their definition of users were more than what I've written, I'd never be a part of that "movement", because it doesn't align with my expectations from F-Droid. I expect them to adhere to the FOSS principles and not more than that. I have many other places where I can get involved with other movements.
F-Droid doesn't have a recommendation system or advertising, and it does verify the functionality of an app to the extent to ensure that it's safe to use and categorized correctly. These are some of the policies that also align quite well with the FOSS principles. Because an app that scams people, doesn't have the advertised features, or display advertisements are inherently non-FOSS. (This is different from an F-Droid client in the sense that it can have repositories that can offer these sort of apps.)
This was not always the case though. I think F-Droid has been facing a lot of criticisms lately for their trying to do things other than FOSS. I mean they were criticized for security issues, signing key issues, and so on in the past. But nowadays, things have taken a different turn. This is why I like #IzzyOnDroid repo more than the F-Droid repo itself, because @IzzyOnDroid almost singlehandedly has done a great job overall on the implementation and maintenance of apps, AFs, and static analyzers there. It offers more reproducible apps and it's easy to filter apps based on the AFs that an actual FOSS lover is interested in.
F-Droid team really needs to think about their definition of users and adhere to it for making policy decision. Many developers of apps available on F-Droid are also the users. So, if they start losing developers, they'll lose both apps and users. The FOSS spirit will still linger though, but it will likely be backed by another organization.
@muntashir @Epic_Null @emaksovalec @IzzyOnDroid You're right, F-Droid does really need to think about the definition of users we use and stick to it. It turns out, we have been doing a lot of that since the beginning. We do it in public and welcome all constructive engagement. For example, on the topic of app inclusion:
For discussions, check the currently active https://forum.f-droid.org or https://gitlab.com/fdroid or even archive, like from 2012 https://f-droid.org/forums/post/1301/index.html
@eighthave @Epic_Null @emaksovalec @IzzyOnDroid This is really a serious topic that I believe cannot be addressed any time soon. My suggestion would be refraining from activities unrelated to FOSS and RB. Some of the members do not sound professional, unfortunately, which will be an embargo against the expansion of F-Droid in the future. I think F-Droid has received notable criticisms this time, and it will be in the watchlist for many months to come.