[dvno42]

This seems reasonable. The content includes themes (death, rape, violence, etc) that are generally considered NSFW by most modern day rating agencies. Just because cultures have historically seeded the texts for a long period of time doesn't make them SFW. If ESRB/MPAA had to rate a modern reboot, I don't think it would get a T/PG-13.

Personally, I wouldn't want my kids exposed to this kind of material without at least having a chance to talk to them about it first. Would you want your child getting sucked into something like Scientology without your knowledge?

[48terry]

Would you agree the Wikipedia app should be marked NSFW? It also contains a whole lot of objectionable stuff, often with pictures.

[nathanaldensr]

It's only reasonable if reason is applied, rather than one particular set of contributors' political sensibilities. Unfortunately, there is zero logical consistency in what is marked NSFW and what isn't. That's the entire problem. F-Droid's authoritarian moral-policing crew are coming up with any flimsy justification for censorship applied inconsistently rather than taking an objective look at the issue. Read the comments and you'll see their tone is clearly dismissive and condescending, not collaborative and "Hmm, I can see how maybe this line of policing is inconsistent." This is how this kind of political-bias-pretending-to-be-objectivity tends to unfold with religious adherents, which these F-Droid contributors seem to be.

[daurentius523]

"one particular set of contributors' political sensibilities." - the entire western world is now particular sets of political and ideological sensibilities. Why puritan christians always assume that theirs is somehow different of others and won't be subject to new puritanism?

"Read the comments and you'll see their tone is clearly dismissive and condescending" - you think that way because you are biased to classify your religious text as not nsfw - but there is no such reason really - christianity is no longer main ideology of everyone.