Re: Fact-checking and community notes on the Fediverse

čt 23. 1. 2025 v 5:02 odesílatel Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> napsal:

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 21:47, Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Adam, et.al,
>>
>> Answers in line...
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 07:00, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Aaron,
>>> All,
>>>
>>> With respect to those environment topics, I found this quote in the *Fact
>>> Protocol White Paper* (
>>> https://fact.technology/files/2022/05/Fact-Protocol-White-Paper-Q2-2022-signed.pdf),
>>> p.14:
>>>
>>> "At its core, The Fact Protocol is environmentally sustainable. The
>>> protocol promotes sustainability across its ecosystem by utilizing a PoS
>>> protocol/mechanism, also known as Proof-of-Stake, which is not only
>>> efficient in meeting protocol requirements, such as executing transactions
>>> at high speeds for a very low fee, but also environment friendly because,
>>> in comparison to the PoW (Proof-of-Work) mechanism, PoS emits significantly
>>> less CO2 for processing each transaction."
>>>
>>
>> This is wonderful, thanks for the find, yes Proof of Stake is the way to
>> go. I will print this out and read it properly offline.
>>
>
> No, not so wonderful, this looks like a closed development effort for an
> ongoing concern rather than a specification, wish I had looked at it before
> replying.
>

Proof of Stake systems are often proprietary and can create a "rich get
richer" effect, where founders are incentivized to sell their tokens. While
not exactly like charging royalties, it can resemble such models. As W3C is
a royalty-free consortium, this requires careful consideration, especially
given potential legal and regulatory challenges associated with token
offerings.

Creating a globally consistent ordering system does incur costs (e.g.,
storage), requiring either an honest central mint, a federation that is
two-thirds honest, or a blockchain that is 51% honest and resistant to
reorganization.


>
> If we are to use blockchain it needs to be a green blockchain technology
> otherwise we are using up energy at an increasing rate against time and the
> number of transactions powered by the number of users. I am not aware of
> any real green block chain technologies in existence, everything seems so
> geared to making money that everything else gets overshadowed.
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652623036995
>
>
> https://abmagazine.accaglobal.com/global/articles/2023/specials/big-tech-special-edition-april-2023/blockchain-greens-up-its-act.html
>
> Blockchain apparently goes back to David Chaum's dissertation :-
>
> Computer Systems Established, Maintained and Trusted by Mutually
> Suspicious Groups
> https://evervault.com/papers/chaum.pdf
>
> This is incomplete unfortunately only 86 pages print.
>
> I am still thinking that we need to establish a system like the DNS system
> where a group of trusted servers can oversee the signatures of sub-servers
> that run sub-chains.
>
> I think formalization of both the domain and server technologies are the
> way forward.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aaron
>
>
>
>> With respect to the annotation topics, drawing from the Web Annotation
>>> Data Model (https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/) to enable
>>> scenarios such as fact-checking and argumentation, something that was not,
>>> at first, intuitive to me when I first read that Specification was that
>>> annotations can be about multiple selections of content and provide
>>> multiple comments about them. That is, in that model, instead of annotation
>>> objects each being zero or one comments about one selection of one
>>> document, annotation objects are such that selections and comments can both
>>> be arrays (
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#cardinality-of-bodies-and-targets).
>>> One could, then, for instance, make a comment about multiple selections of
>>> a document.
>>>
>>> I think that it would be interesting to be able to easily express
>>> semantic relationships between two annotation targets: Web Annotation
>>> × Semantic Web. One would, then, be able to express: "selections A of
>>> documents X *corroborate* selections B of documents Y", or: "selections
>>> A of documents X *refute* selections B of documents Y", and so forth.
>>> It would be interesting to be able to easily create and express typed
>>> connections, or relationships, between selections of documents.
>>>
>>
>> Yes this needs formalizing properly, and is definitely the right
>> direction !
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2025 9:53 AM
>>> *To:* Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Emelia S. <emelia@brandedcode.com>; Evan Prodromou <
>>> evan@prodromou.name>; public-swicg@w3c.org <public-swicg@w3c.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Fact-checking and community notes on the Fediverse
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 13:45, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Aaron,
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Should these broader topics interest you, there is a new *Decentralized
>>> Fact-checking & Provenance Organization (DeFacto) Community Group: *
>>> https://www.w3.org/community/defacto/ . The Chair of the new Group is
>>> interested in blockchain-based solutions [1].
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> I have to say being green and concerned about energy usage and the
>>> environment that I am highly against the use and proliferation of
>>> blockchain technology as an answer and really feel it should not be
>>> encouraged at all as as it grows along with BitCoin it will have a larger
>>> carbon footprint than most smaller countries. We saw the chaos it caused
>>> with BitCoin mining.
>>>
>>> Basically doing multiple concurrent repeated operations of Merkle Trees
>>> of double SHA256's for each block is insanity. The usage of Proof of Work
>>> in a concurrent race state is like using a hammer to crack a nut when we
>>> could have a system like the DNS root server system in place instead
>>> providing a trusted system built on verified procedures. A chain of RSA
>>> signatures of SHA512 of blocks should suffice for the nbase mechanism, and
>>> done by dedicated hardware would have a very small carbon footprint
>>> that could be offset by using a green electricity source like Google does.
>>>
>>> Onto getting back to the fact checking issue at hand, yes employing a
>>> decentralized approach is good, and putting the standards, protocols,
>>> tools, and procedures in place is a step in the right direction.
>>>
>>> However I can see one very simple way of fact checking and that is the
>>> use of links to subsuming articles or scientific papers. By subsuming or
>>> subsumption in the formal sense of the word I mean that the subsuming item
>>> or items covers the material the original post article does but has a wider
>>> and more formal basis in terms of the area of concern. This limits it to
>>> simply matching either a URL link to a URL link or links, or a cut and
>>> paste piece of text that can be SHA256'ed to a URL or URL's. Which can be
>>> automated.
>>>
>>> Are, but the devil 'time' raises his head ! There is always the event of
>>> new information coming to light so this system has to be dynamic and not
>>> simply deposit recorded URL's. Ideally this is done at serving time or a
>>> time stamp that can be checked to see if the fact checked URL's no longer
>>> suffice.
>>>
>>> I see this as a possible mechanism and the URL's could always point to
>>> constructed fact checked articles that are kept uptodate and have a
>>> recorded modification history too.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> [1] https://fact.technology/
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2025 12:39 AM
>>> *To:* Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Emelia S. <emelia@brandedcode.com>; Evan Prodromou <
>>> evan@prodromou.name>; public-swicg@w3c.org <public-swicg@w3c.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Fact-checking and community notes on the Fediverse
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> I am seriously of the opinion in any complex domain it takes an expert
>>> to make the real value judgements. Having said that detailed dissection of
>>> a text or text from audio and analysis by some form of grounding may allow
>>> analysis.
>>>
>>> But you have to remember everything is only a construct and even if all
>>> the facts are correct,  we have to remember that even science does not have
>>> facts, only theories that are checked against experiment. Given this,
>>> therefore what we are actually dealing with hypothetical constructs to
>>> burrow sciences way of analysing the world and applying that.
>>>
>>> This puts us in a situation where something might "have all the facts
>>> correct" but may not be correct in itself, it's a construct, and it may
>>> have been constructed to mislead or may be constructed by someone who is
>>> not aligned with reality or suffers from the alignment problem, to burrow
>>> from AI. Or they might quite simply not have all the facts.
>>>
>>> Now does the fact checker have all the facts, can we even check all the
>>> facts, and who delineates the truth in the end. If we claim the ultimate
>>> truth and we are not aligned with reality then we are only misleading.
>>>
>>> To reiterate, I am seriously of the opinion in any complex domain it
>>> takes an expert. And if an expert system like science and scientists make
>>> the wrong call, either because they are owned, it bought or influenced by
>>> politics or circumstance, then the whole system maybe devalued by the
>>> general public, who ever they are now
>>>
>>> I rest my case, this thing is really complicated and we need to tread
>>> carefully tools can be misused and are a double edged sword.
>>>
>>> Sorry I did not answer your question but stepped back a bit into science
>>> and the edge of philosophy, but I think we need to bear in mind the wider
>>> context before and as we step forward.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025, 02:15 Adam Sobieski, <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Aaron,
>>>
>>> Yes, the pandemic did trigger much interest in fact-checking. I don't
>>> know whether interest is waning or not or, for that matter, in which
>>> situations that end-users would choose to make use any of these features
>>> that we're brainstorming and discussing.
>>>
>>> Beyond the pandemic and the related topics of the accuracy of
>>> information during crises and emergencies, interesting use cases include
>>> assuring the accuracy of public-sector speeches, debates, and meetings.
>>>
>>> Maybe, someday, there will be real-time fact-checking for orators'
>>> debates? Maybe, someday, legislators or their staffers will be able to make
>>> use of real-time fact-checking technologies using their smartphones?
>>>
>>> P2P-based approaches for annotations might answer some questions that
>>> were presented (searching for annotations) while creating yet more
>>> questions. For instance, with respect to fact-checking, I'm not yet sure
>>> about what the UX would be when a fact or claim were contested, when there
>>> were thousands of annotations supporting a fact or claim and thousands
>>> opposing it simultaneously. This might display, instead of a green
>>> checkmark or a red x, a yellow warning indicator. Mindful of the pandemic
>>> and the points that you raised, what sorts of dashboards can be envisiond
>>> for end-users to explore contested or disputed facts or claims?
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the *Citation Needed* project [1] presents an entirely
>>> different approach to fact-checking, one involving AI and Wikipedia. Which
>>> kinds of responses should such a system provide to end-users, I wonder,
>>> when it can find content both supporting and opposing facts or claims on
>>> Wikipedia? This might segue from fact-checking to argumentation and to
>>> hedging, listing alternatives (e.g., true, false) and providing support for
>>> each alternative.
>>>
>>> Thank you. Any thoughts on these points?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Future_Audiences/Experiment:Citation_Needed
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2025 6:57 PM
>>> *To:* Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Emelia S. <emelia@brandedcode.com>; Evan Prodromou <
>>> evan@prodromou.name>; public-swicg@w3c.org <public-swicg@w3c.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Fact-checking and community notes on the Fediverse
>>>
>>> I think a lot of the issues we are dealing with need to be addressed
>>> with at source and are educational, social, political, nutritional, and
>>> drug related.
>>>
>>> Putting fact checking on things means :-
>>>
>>> a) your fact checking has to be correct, which often it's not.
>>> b) it has to be objective and not oppionated.
>>> c) it has to be well researched and well presented to _any_ audience.
>>> d) it has to be read, understood, and accepted.
>>>
>>> All of these are subject to cognitive biases. Wikipedia gives a good
>>> long list that all need to be considered :-
>>>
>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
>>>
>>> Quite frankly I think you are wasting your time most people don't read
>>> the stuff and it's got a reputation for being incorrect whether it is or
>>> not. So most of your target audience are either already educated and aware
>>> anyway or are not and just ignore it anyway. Most people on social media
>>> use emotions over intellect to judge things anyway and are subject to both
>>> confirmation bias and an echo chambered existence.
>>>
>>> The problems with COVID-19 for example were :-
>>> a) most people did not have sufficiently high enough levels of Vitamin D.
>>> b) the authorities wanted us to stay in and not get enough sunlight and
>>> fresh air
>>> c) most people drink milk and animal fats. Lactic and animal fats
>>> harbour Coronavirus.
>>> d) most people in ICU's had either  comorbidities, were overweight, or
>>> had genetic disposition with hACE2 receptors.
>>> e) were black or Hispanic nurses pushed to the attack surface in ICU's
>>> in hospitals on their feet for excessive periods dealing with COVID-19
>>> patients with airborne SARS-CoV-2 virii in close conditions with
>>> insufficient PPE.
>>> f) the people we were trying to protect were the elderly, people with
>>> comorbidities, people with immune conditions, or on immunosuppressants, or
>>> had genetic predispositions like the black population with hACE2 alleles.
>>> g) There are simple ways to help combat mRNA virii, like being young and
>>> having lots of siRNA's in your cell cytoplasm, having sex often and having
>>> lots of siRNA in your cellular cytoplasm, taking Vitamin C, D, Alpha Lipoic
>>> Acid and Quercetin if you have COVID-19.
>>>
>>> Now fact check that for example, you would not have found out this
>>> information without having run a COVID-19 group and/or read all the
>>> scientific literature on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV2. BTW this list is actually
>>> a lot lot longer but you get the idea. Now if you post that list you will
>>> get fact checked incorrectly despite it all being well researched mainly
>>> from PubMed accessible leading peer reviewed papers.
>>>
>>> This is what triggered all the fact checking in the first place.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents worth.
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025, 23:32 Adam Sobieski, <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Social Web Incubator Community Group,
>>>
>>> Hello. I am pleased to share some preliminary brainstorming and ideas
>>> about decentralized fact-checking and argumentation using P2P filesharing
>>> networks.
>>> Hopefully some of the following ideas can be of use for the Fediverse,
>>> e.g., for the discovery of existing annotations.
>>>
>>> Introduction With respect to sharing Web Annotations, uses of P2P
>>> networks have been previously explored (Segawa, 2006). Providing users with
>>> access to these kinds of networks from their Web browsers, today, is
>>> possible with WebRTC (Werner & Vogt, 2014; Ersson & Siri, 2015).
>>> P2P filesharing networks could be of use for decentralized fact-checking
>>> and argumentation. Facts or claims could be stored in entries, a special
>>> kind of file resource.
>>> By creating and sharing digitally-signed user feedback, notes, comments,
>>> or annotations with respect to those facts or claims in entries, users
>>> could express their determinations with respect to the veracity of facts or
>>> claims and could also present arguments for or against them (Bex, Snaith,
>>> Lawrence, & Reed, 2014).
>>> Entries could contain one or more references to paraphrases of content
>>> from locations on the Fediverse (see: Appendix A). Annotation objects from
>>> the Fediverse could be indexed and redundantly stored on P2P filesharing
>>> networks.
>>> Uses of Embedding Vectors
>>> Instead of, or in addition to, using cryptographic hashes to index and
>>> address content on P2P networks, digitally-signed entries for facts or
>>> claims could be indexed and addressed using embedding vectors (Zaarour &
>>> Curry, 2022).
>>> As considered, entries would be a special kind of file resource where
>>> their embedding vectors, embedding vectors verifiably for selections of
>>> other resources' contents, would be stored inside of them (see: Appendix A)
>>> rather than obtained from processing them with AI models.
>>> Indexing and addressing entries thusly would allow them to be merged or
>>> wrapped, e.g., to add paraphrases, digitally signing them at each step,
>>> without having to reindex them. Modifications, however, would result in
>>> changes to entries' cryptographic hashes.
>>> Deep learning can be used to detect and identify sentential paraphrases
>>> (Zhou, Qiu, Liang, & Acuna, 2022). More elaborate uses of language models
>>> could be utilized for inquiring and reasoning about whether sentences
>>> occurring in contexts were paraphrases.
>>> With respect to fact-checking on the Web, scenarios to consider include
>>> both fact-checking content which was expressly indicated to be a fact or
>>> claim by their authors, e.g., using custom elements, and fact-checking
>>> arbitrary selections of documents' content.
>>> Explorations with respect to fact-checking arbitrary selections of
>>> content include the open-source Citation Needed project by the Future
>>> Audiences team of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>>> The Prompt API
>>> Exploration is underway into providing APIs for accessing language
>>> models in Web browsers; the Web Machine Learning Working Group is
>>> developing the Prompt API.
>>> With access to language models in Web browsers, users might be able to
>>> obtain embedding vectors for portions of content in Web documents. These
>>> embedding vectors could be used to search for other content, e.g.,
>>> annotations, including on P2P networks.
>>> Custom Elements HTML5 custom elements could allow facts or claims to be
>>> expressed in documents, e.g., to add visual indictors near them or enable
>>> special context menus for them, while specifying values for embedding
>>> vectors computed for them using AI models (see: Appendix C). Appendices
>>> Appendix A shows a markup sketch for an entry, a created entry wrapped
>>> to add a paraphrase to it.
>>> Appendix B shows that embedding vectors could be added to Magnet URIs
>>> and Metalinks.
>>> Appendix C shows that HTML5 custom elements could be used for asserted
>>> facts or claims which refer to entries on P2P networks by means of one or
>>> more embedding vectors.
>>> Appendix D shows an approach involving shortcodes for authors using
>>> content-management systems to be able to easily add facts or claims to
>>> their content.
>>> Bibliography
>>> Bex, Floris, Mark Snaith, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. "ArguBlogging:
>>> An application for the argument web." *Journal of Web Semantics* 25
>>> (2014): 9-15.
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570826814000079
>>> Ersson, Kerstin, and Persson Siri. "Peer-to-peer distribution of web
>>> content using WebRTC within a web browser." (2015).
>>> https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:819420/FULLTEXT01.pdf
>>> Segawa, Osamu. "Web annotation sharing using P2P." In *Proceedings of
>>> the 15th international conference on World Wide Web*, pp. 851-852.
>>> 2006.
>>> http://ra.ethz.ch/CDstore/www2006/devel-www2006.ecs.soton.ac.uk/programme/files/pdf/p45.pdf
>>> Werner, Max Jonas, and Christian Vogt. "Implementation of a
>>> browser-based P2P network using WebRTC." *Hamburg* (2014).
>>> https://inet.haw-hamburg.de/teaching/ws-2013-14/master-project/Prj1-report-werner-vogt.pdf
>>> Zaarour, Tarek, and Edward Curry. "SemanticPeer: A distributional
>>> semantic peer-to-peer lookup protocol for large content spaces at
>>> internet-scale." *Future Generation Computer Systems* 132 (2022):
>>> 239-253.
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X22000590
>>> Zhou, Chao, Cheng Qiu, Lizhen Liang, and Daniel E. Acuna. "Paraphrase
>>> identification with deep learning: A review of datasets and methods." *arXiv
>>> preprint arXiv:2212.06933* (2022). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.06933
>>>
>>>
>>> Appendix A: Sketch of an Entry for a Fact or Claim
>>>
>>> <action kind="add-paraphrase">
>>>
>>>   <base>
>>>
>>>     <action kind="create">
>>>
>>>       <base />
>>>
>>>       <time>2024-01-14T00:01:00Z</time>
>>>
>>>       <v id="v-1" model=" urn:ai:model:llama:3.2:90B">...</v>
>>>
>>>       <metalink id="source-1">
>>>
>>>         <file name="article1.html">
>>>
>>>           <url>https://www.example1.com/user1/article1.html</url>
>>>
>>>         </file>
>>>
>>>       </metalink>
>>>
>>>       <selection source="source-1">
>>>
>>>         ... <select v="v-1">A sentence.</select> ...
>>>
>>>       </selection>
>>>
>>>       <signature>...</signature>
>>>
>>>     </action>
>>>
>>>   </base>
>>>
>>>   <time>2024-01-14T00:00:00Z</time>
>>>
>>>   <v id="v-2" model="urn:ai:model:llama:3.3:70B">...</v>
>>>
>>>   <metalink id="source-2">
>>>
>>>     <file name="article2.html">
>>>
>>>       <url>https://www.example2.com/user2/article2.html</url>
>>>
>>>     </file>
>>>
>>>   </metalink>
>>>
>>>   <selection source="source-2">
>>>
>>>     ... <select v="v-1 v-2">A paraphrase.</select> ...
>>>
>>>   </selection>
>>>
>>>   <signature>...</signature>
>>>
>>> </action>
>>>
>>>
>>> Appendix B: Adding Embedding Vectors to Magnet URIs and Metalinks Embedding
>>> vectors could be added to Magnet URIs by means of adding a key: xv.
>>> Embedding vectors could be new components of metalinks.
>>> <metalink xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:metalink">
>>>   <published>2009-05-15T12:23:23Z</published>
>>>   <file name="example.txt">
>>>     <url>http://www.example.com/example.txt</url>
>>>     <vector model="urn:ai:model:llama:3.3:70B">...</vector>
>>>   </file>
>>> </metalink>
>>>
>>> Appendix C: Custom Elements for Facts or Claims A custom element could
>>> be used to signify an asserted fact or claim, referring to an entry on a
>>> P2P network by means of embedding vectors alongside other information. Via
>>> a JavaScript library, and perhaps WebRTC, clients could participate in P2P
>>> networks and retrieve entries, feedback on entries, or both.
>>> Notice that, for the special file type of entries, those embedding
>>> vectors within them and not of the XML file itself are utilized with
>>> respect to storing and addressing the resource on P2P networks.
>>> <verifiable-claim see="magnet:?xv=...">Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
>>> nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
>>> consequat.</verifiable-claim>
>>> Appendix D: Content Authoring with Shortcodes How might authors easily
>>> add facts or claims to their content? With respect to popular
>>> content-management systems, the syntax for so doing could resemble that of
>>> existing shortcodes like [quote].
>>> [claim]Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
>>> laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.[/claim]
>>> During content-publishing processes, authors' content-management systems
>>> (e.g., Drupal, WordPress) – or configurable plugins or extensions for these
>>> systems – could handle searching for existing paraphrases, adding new facts
>>> or claims (if needed) to P2P filesharing networks, obtaining the data for
>>> use in the see attributes, caching these data, and generating markup.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Emelia S. <emelia@brandedcode.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 13, 2025 11:21 AM
>>> *To:* Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
>>> *Cc:* public-swicg@w3c.org <public-swicg@w3c.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Fact-checking and community notes on the Fediverse
>>>
>>> This is already something on the list of things that the ActivityPub
>>> Trust  & Safety Taskforce is working on:
>>>
>>> [image: 4.png]
>>> <https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-trust-and-safety/issues/4>
>>>
>>> Idea: Annotations / Labeling of content · Issue #4 ·
>>> swicg/activitypub-trust-and-safety
>>> <https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-trust-and-safety/issues/4>
>>> github.com
>>> <https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-trust-and-safety/issues/4>
>>>
>>> The Web Annotations model could work, but the discovery of annotations
>>> that exist is the hardest part, I've started solving that in
>>> https://github.com/ThisIsMissEm/annotations-service where I use the
>>> sha256 hash of the Object ID as the annotation collection ID, giving a very
>>> simple way to fetch all annotations for a given object.
>>>
>>> I do want to investigate what an Annotate activity would look like, but
>>> I suspect this would just be an announcement of sorts "hey, there's this
>>> web annotation over here for this target"
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Emelia
>>>
>>> On 13 Jan 2025, at 04:23, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
>>>
>>> We don't have an easy way for remote actors to annotate content on the
>>> Fediverse.
>>>
>>> The biggest use case for this is to have permissionless fact-checking or
>>> community notes. A fact-checking service could annotate a remote content
>>> object like a Note or a Video with additional fact-checking information,
>>> and compliant clients or servers could show the fact-checking information
>>> when showing the Note.
>>>
>>> I think there are some tricky parts to this structure, which I believe
>>> suggests that we should start working on it.
>>>
>>> Evan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org | @aaronngray@threads.net
>>> | @AaronNGray@Twitter.com
>>>
>>> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher
>>> and Designer, Amateur Type Theorist, Amateur Computer Scientist,
>>> Environmentalist and Climate Science Researcher and Disseminator.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org | @aaronngray@threads.net |
>> @AaronNGray@Twitter.com
>>
>> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher
>> and Designer, Amateur Type Theorist, Amateur Computer Scientist,
>> Environmentalist and Climate Science Researcher and Disseminator.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org | @aaronngray@threads.net |
> @AaronNGray@Twitter.com
>
> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher
> and Designer, Amateur Type Theorist, Amateur Computer Scientist,
> Environmentalist and Climate Science Researcher and Disseminator.
>
>