That makes sense. I still think there is good reason to create a standard around this indicating UGC content within a subdomain though. For example:

- Browsers might want to treat it differently for malware scanning purposes.

- Content owners might want to treat it differently when filing automated DMCA complaints.

- Search engines might want to treat it differently for ranking purposes.

One of the biggest reasons why GitHub (for example) uses a separate subdomain is so that a persistent XSS exploit on their UGC domain cannot access HTTPOnly cookies or other information from their real domain. Impersonation is a bigger problem for a government, but it's also a security measure against how broken the current security model for things like cookies is.

I get why subdomains can be useful for preventing XSS and CORS issues, especially for non API-driven sites. The problem is that subdomains are used for all sorts of things, so just because something is on a subdomain doesn't signal that it's UGC content. Even if you hosted each person's content on its own subdomain, it would still be useful to have a standard way to signal that this content wasn't created by the organization who owns the domain.

The benefit of the tilde is that, at least as far as I know, it has never been used for anything other than signaling that something is UGC content. (Even if that was a technological accident and not its original intent.)

> it would still be useful to have a standard way to signal that this content wasn't created by the organization who owns the domain.

Do you think the assumption that the content was created by the organization who owns the domain should be default? Wouldn't it be better for the organization to provide a signature for the content it did create?

> Do you think the assumption that the content was created by the organization who owns the domain should be default?

Sure, and I think that is the current assumption. What's missing is a way to specify UGC content that wasn't created by the organization.

> Wouldn't it be better for the organization to provide a signature for the content it did create?

I don't think this would be viable for two reasons:

- It would require people to do the work to opt in, without any obvious incentive for doing so.

- No obvious way to different UGC content from javascript dependencies, fonts, ad trackers, etc.

Whereas there are good use cases for allowing folks to mark content as being UGC. For example, let's say the game Draw Something wanted to let users upload their creations. So no security issues, since images are created through their own app, but they don't necessarily want everyone thinking that they're spending all day creating and uploading millions of dick drawings either.

I have no idea what problem you think you are solving. Could you clearly state your goals and why you think they are broadly applicable?

So the original question was how to signal that files uploaded by users to the FCC were not created by the FCC. Some people suggested entirely different domains, but that's hacky and doesn't really solve the issue. And maybe the content should be hosted on a subdomain for security reasons, but that still doesn't solve the issue of signaling that it wasn't created by the FCC.

I suggested just adding a ~ to the domain name, because when you see a domain name like this:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~allen/

It's universally recognized that the content on that page was not created by columbia.edu or cs.columbia.edu in an official capacity.

Other people said we can't do this because it's not an official standard, so I said let's just make it a standard. Which I think is good because it keeps an important piece of Internet culture alive by codifying it, which would let people rely on it when designing new systems. And ultimately it should work because there is no history of this URL pattern being used for non-UGC content.

it amazes me that you consider this post to be an accurate depiction of the way the world is.

it appears your only goal is to be right.

Ugh, typo (and I can't edit it anymore). I meant "separate domain". Subdomains actually don't protect against cookie attacks.