Given that we're just talking HTML, I don't see how you could meaningfully prevent bad actors, absent storing screenshots of the original text -- and even then (see any number of fake tweets that circulate). Hypothetically, instead of linking to the original source, I suppose it could link to the Wayback Machine version of the text, but I don't think that's a helpful default way to link to people's work. As a fallback when sites disappear, sure, but otherwise...
dbieber|5 years ago
In the happy path (where the quoteback is genuine) the browser could indicate to the user that the quoteback is genuine and the link would take the user to the normal website if it still has the quote, otherwise to the archive snapshot.
In the unhappy path (where the quoteback is disingenuous) the browser could notify the user that the quoteback is disingenuous.
toomuchtodo|5 years ago
somebodythere|5 years ago
If the snippet does indeed come from the website in question, the website will return a signature which the quoter can embed along with the snippet on their own website.
The signature would prove that the content came from the same person who controls domain X (as attested by the CA fo your choice). The user agent can display all this information where the content is quoted.
diablo1|5 years ago
skinkestek|5 years ago
Sounds nice, but my gut feeling is that you wildly underestimate how far people will go to work around anything that could change their beliefs.
This seems to hold true on all sides of the political spectrum, in art as as well as in science and the only difference is what beliefs people stick to.
As a deeply religious person this might come of as really ironic and the irony is not lost on me: quite the contrary and for that reason I've thought about it multiple times.