IMO offense is taken, not given.

In cases like this the "burden" should be on the party choosing the content they want to see.

Everyone should be able to upload a photo of ice on the sidewalk, but the other users should define that ice or sidewalks are offensive to them.

That's strange.

Why do private photos need to be reviewed?

What am I missing? Is everyone just okay with giving up their privacy?

What you are missing is that these aren't private photos. The warning is specifically displayed when you upload photos to their demo server.

I get a bit bored of the knee-jerk "Free Speech" stuff.

1. This is a feature of the base software, largely inherent to the core feature (see below)

2. Is is configurable and I believe mostly off by default, depending on install method

3. It is lit up in their demo instance

4. It is not a bespoke content filter, this is an `AI POWERED` app that classifies and labels photos so that they can be indexed for text search. Everything is processed through a NASNet and labeled. The upload filter just does some pretty rudimentary heuristics on the labels and decides if it will allow or quarantine the upload. To be clear, It is all server side-- the image is uploaded, its just quarantined.

It is a setting you can choose to enable when you install it. It judges “NSFW” images locally and automatically tags them as private, and you can choose to mark them "public" (as in they will appear in searches and albums and the like), they appear in your search. Or you can just choose not to enable that when you install it and it wont run that analysis. I have it turned on just in case something gets mixed in with my regular photos. I’d say 80% are false positives completely random pictures, or of bikini pictures or my gf laying on the couch in short shorts. But it does catch the occasional “private” image, so I like having it on. I also mark some photos private for various reasons, so I can pull up and show people my vacation photo album without worrying.

The review section is not for NSFW things. It is for low resolution or low information images. Again, it runs locally. As far as I know, it is to keep your library from being clogged up with crappy thumbnails or screenshots or other junk. If you don’t care, you can just bulk approve them.

It also does facial recognition locally. You aren’t giving up any privacy, which is why I use this after resisting Google photos and just doing the folders method for years.

Where is your quoted text from? I couldn't find it on linked github.

Edit: Okay, found it. I think it's likely that those warnings are only for uploading on their demo server linked on github and not on the locally hosted product.

Theres an option to disable it on the local version. Just noticed mine also said that on the upload page and went looking in the options

When you're already running everything through a NASNet and labeling, its pretty easy to somewhat arbitrarily pick a list of labels to blacklist

https://github.com/photoprism/photoprism/blob/ff5f3ddeb1a198...

You can upload nsfw images to your own server. It automatically sets them to private, but it’s not incredible at identifying photo content yet.