OK, new nostr proposal.
IF a client supports muting of hashtags per NIP-51, AND it supports NIP-36 content warnings, then it SHOULD treat any blocked hashtag as if they had the content-warning tag with the name of the hashtag as the reason. Unless there's actually a content-warning tag already, in which case that takes precedence.
Guessing no clients would be impacted by this? Is this something that should make it into a NIP?
I guess I missed a case. This is specific to notes from people (and hashtags?) you follow. In the global context, mute is mute.
I'm curious what you think of my proposal for how to handle this?
I know nothing about nips or any of the technical side of this and dont really care to. if people want controls so they can adjust what gets through, they should have them. my issue remains with people that want people to bend to their will. shaming to get people to self censor is far worse than closing their eyes to what's out there with some filtering feature they impose on themselves.
create the nip if they want it.
#fuckfascists
#fuckcensorship
#myrightsdontendwhereyoursensitivitiesbegin yeah, that one is too long.
#grownostr
