Replying to Avatar Peter K

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?
Avatar
Peter K 2y ago

I guess I missed a case. This is specific to notes from people (and hashtags?) you follow. In the global context, mute is mute.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.