I find it ironic to read that using the censorship-resistant protocol 🌚
#devstr
At some point it was expected to see nsfw here: the protocol specs even mention nsfw/content-warning tags as examples. Yet due to repetitive irresponsible Blossom servers use, it seems like nobody's currently willing to maintain them, specifically for nsfw. Or due to related political age verification cringe, for example: this may affect hosting providers / domain registrars at some point, suddenly requiring KYC from blossom admins as a result, if not worse. DCMA takedown letters are a risk as well. Or it's due to whatever other moral reasons too, I dunno.
I guess some of us believe that we shouldn't focus on this content right now, that this stuff should go last. Soft erotic nsfw possibly acceptable to many here, though. To me personally, if whatever legal nsfw content is properly distinguishable with the nsfw tag—this still should be okay. Whoever who specifically produces original legal content and publishes their nostr events with the tag could run a blossom server for themselves and for likely minded people; nobody can technically disallow that here. Some small fee from producers will also make it reasonable to maintain the server.
> dudes with no tact sending DMs
DMs probably not worth reading here right now for this purpose. I've seen pronouns/gender spec proposals, and I think it's useful here: an nsfw-oriented client could have ignored all DMs from those who didn't set their pronouns or have an irrelevant one. As well as disallow sending any DMs until the pronoun is not yet set. As well as adding the proper nsfw/content-warning tag on every event (both public and the DMs even) and ignoring all non-nsfw events (which will be simultaneously an incentive to not publish events without the appropriate tag at all). WoT and whatever would help too but they are ironically almost empty of those who'd want to send such DMs (which is not necessary a bad thing).
If we stop fighting this stuff and transform it properly, those who don't want nsfw content will see it less often as a result. I think it's a win-win.
codonaft
npub1al…7rg94
2026-09-13 00:17:48 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…5y9r
Author Public Key
npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94Published at
2026-09-13 00:17:48 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "1c3815dec680b0eafb4257ac42dfbafac71ecb39fbd1be638a83c8ffd002c8c2",
"pubkey": "efc2b6e59480f0e55cc87c69af06b6d1a11fa25e4ea95a439878c41799c53c19",
"created_at": 1789258668,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8c2d0fd91814b114d4428f02967874ff15c7a3b8f522f9e691a65ae20765d484",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"b355c9cb1bcc4d785408a994cbc5ccd6ff9f2aff4972d9b0229352292f1c5905"
],
[
"t",
"devstr"
]
],
"content": "I find it ironic to read that using the censorship-resistant protocol 🌚\n\n#devstr\n\nAt some point it was expected to see nsfw here: the protocol specs even mention nsfw/content-warning tags as examples. Yet due to repetitive irresponsible Blossom servers use, it seems like nobody's currently willing to maintain them, specifically for nsfw. Or due to related political age verification cringe, for example: this may affect hosting providers / domain registrars at some point, suddenly requiring KYC from blossom admins as a result, if not worse. DCMA takedown letters are a risk as well. Or it's due to whatever other moral reasons too, I dunno.\n\nI guess some of us believe that we shouldn't focus on this content right now, that this stuff should go last. Soft erotic nsfw possibly acceptable to many here, though. To me personally, if whatever legal nsfw content is properly distinguishable with the nsfw tag—this still should be okay. Whoever who specifically produces original legal content and publishes their nostr events with the tag could run a blossom server for themselves and for likely minded people; nobody can technically disallow that here. Some small fee from producers will also make it reasonable to maintain the server.\n\n\u003e dudes with no tact sending DMs\n\nDMs probably not worth reading here right now for this purpose. I've seen pronouns/gender spec proposals, and I think it's useful here: an nsfw-oriented client could have ignored all DMs from those who didn't set their pronouns or have an irrelevant one. As well as disallow sending any DMs until the pronoun is not yet set. As well as adding the proper nsfw/content-warning tag on every event (both public and the DMs even) and ignoring all non-nsfw events (which will be simultaneously an incentive to not publish events without the appropriate tag at all). WoT and whatever would help too but they are ironically almost empty of those who'd want to send such DMs (which is not necessary a bad thing).\n\nIf we stop fighting this stuff and transform it properly, those who don't want nsfw content will see it less often as a result. I think it's a win-win.",
"sig": "af5b9ef8b98aae4ff1b5787a8958359dce1219d8f597e02735b3f5251368a5de0ea2850d1cd17fbafc6eb75c5a7ed6fe8d1349bb151feff16f8d5a6a25156353"
}