Mute words should function on partial match.

[aldc-seanogrady]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Problem occurs when a mute word is listed however pluralisms or other common variations on the word do not result in a mute. Example, republican is added to mute words but when republicans is in a post it is not muted.

Describe the solution you'd like

Mute words should function on substring match and continue to be case insensitive.

Describe alternatives you've considered

No alternative exists

Additional context

This functionality will reduce the variations required to cleanse a timeline from subject areas that are undesirable

[richie3366]

Only giving my opinion, but I see many problems that could occur if this is implemented without any caution, for example:

• if I mute X because I don't want any post that refers to the other network, I wouldn't be able to read any post containing the letter
• a less extreme, but still plausible scenario: if I want to mute "ape" because of a phobia (my partner has it, for example), I'd miss any post with words containing "ape": paper, aperçu (we're French), aperture, and many others

This would add countless cases of false negative side-effects, and those would even not be controllable. Not mentioning that it could mess with the older mutes created at a time when it was actually strict.

So my suggestion on this would be, either:

• inform the user that the mute isn't extensive, that they should add every variation if necessary, imo this could suffice
• or, add a way to put jokers (via _ & *), &/or regexes

WDYT?

[aldc-seanogrady]

Wildcards are a great solution to this problem. Definitely should be optional for the user but doable. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

…

________________________________ From: richie3366 ***@***.***> Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2025 2:28:05 PM To: bluesky-social/atproto ***@***.***> Cc: Sean O'Grady ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [bluesky-social/atproto] Mute words should function on partial match. (Issue #3458) Only giving my opinion, but I see many problems that could occur if this is implemented without any caution, for example: * if I mute X because I don't want any post that refers to the other network, I wouldn't be able to read any post containing the letter * a less extreme, but still plausible scenario: if I want to mute "ape" because of a phobia (my partner has it, for example), I'd miss any post with words containing "ape": paper, aperçu (we're French), aperture, and many others This would add countless cases of false negative side-effects, and those would even not be controllable. Not mentioning that it could mess with the older mutes created at a time when it was actually strict. So my suggestion on this would be, either: * inform the user that the mute isn't extensive, that they should add every variation if necessary, imo this could suffice * or, add a way to put jokers (via _ & *), &/or regexes WDYT? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3458 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATC2PRFIBMD4UKE7QHUSPOL2NVC7LAVCNFSM6AAAAABV2SHOM2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMMRZGE2DEMBWG4>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***> [https://d3v0px0pttie1i.cloudfront.net/uploads/user/logo/12829092/05bbf3ce.png] Sean O'Grady Founder & Chief Technology Officer ALDC [mobilePhone] 778 688 9514<tel:778%20688%209514> [emailAddress] ***@***.******@***.***> [website] aldc.io<https://aldc.io> [address] Kamloops, BC, CA