roddylindsay

Sure:

- which business is behind the website?

- when was said business incorporated?

- how many employees does this business have?

- what is the jurisdiction and canonical registration identifier of this business?

All useful info for an agent determining how much to trust the content on a website and whether to transact with it

It's not so simple:

- If by certifying authority you mean a CA/Trust Service Provider, they don't generally publish client information in a central location.

- If you mean the actual jurisdictional authority, there are thousands and public records are all over the place.

- Websites aren't generally part of corporate filing records. So the agent would still need a way to connect the website to the corporation even after checking the legitimacy of the corporation.

- Serving the structured info in an HTTP header that is cryptographically verifiable by the browser itself (via its trusted roots) essentially serves as a distributed database for website identity, which eliminates the need for each agent to come up with its own ad-hoc verification system on the fly (and all the additional fetches that come along with it)

Very interesting history, thank you for sharing. I had wondered about the design choices there.

Agree that the next step for 2-QWACs is additional corporate data (professional licensure like you mentioned, incorporation date) and eventually arbitrary claims vetted by a QTSP.

For an average human user, these additional claims are nearly useless since they're so buried in the browser UI...and even if they were more prominent, they wouldn't be of much benefit, as the EV history has shown.

But for an agent that knows to look out for these signals, extensible 2-QWACs will be extremely valuable.

2-QWACs are awesome! Thank you for your contributions!

Though I don't understand why they would atone for any sins. IMHO, you created the website identity infrastructure for the agentic web...

And yes, I hope I didn't imply that QWACs are trusted by default for TLS. 1-QWACs would have to come from an existing trusted CA to be recognized by the browser.

As someone who has been in the messaging industry for more than a decade, it sounds naive to think that the litmus test for whether Apple will ban you is whether your traffic qualifies as spam. There is a long history of people trying to get around A2P spam filters / fees / traffic limits / onboarding / KYB requirements by running business messaging on P2P pipes, like you are doing. Some of it has been successful (see Twilio in the early days) but the industry has gotten a lot more sophisticated around this stuff and is not going to be receptive to your approach, which to me resembles the SIM farms that are a scourge when it comes to consumer fraud and abuse.

I hear Kyle Rittenhouse is also coming on board as a junior associate.

Brilliant move.

The transition of the major social networks over the last 10-15 years -- from being a space for friends to interact to being a space to consume content produced by "unconnected" entities like influencers -- has created a huge opening for someone to claim the friends and family network. There is no one better positioned (at least in the U.S. where iPhones are the majority handset) than Apple.

Nice work! Can you export for multichannel playback or is it binaural / stereo?

For me outright deletion just led to other issues like missing out on events / family photos / chats with people I otherwise wasn’t connected to. The target for most people is probably low-moderate use. <shamelessplug> Personally I struggled to achieve balance with my social media usage for years and spent the last two years building out a coaching service to help people like myself keeping social media under a daily time allowance…think of it as a personal trainer (with real accountability and all) for social media and other everyday habits. We just launched this week at zabit.com if anyone wants to check it out.</shamelessplug>