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?