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 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 appears your only goal is to be right.
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?