Internet-Draft HGCP April 2025
Tao Expires 11 October 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-taoqiwen-hgcp-03
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Author:
Q. Tao
Independent Researcher

HGCP: A Voluntary Signing Framework for Human Expression in the Age of AI

Abstract

In an era where AI-generated content has become indistinguishable from human writing, the Human-Generated Content Protocol (HGCP) proposes a voluntary signing framework that enables human authors to publicly acknowledge their expressions. Rather than detecting or classifying content origin, HGCP allows individuals to declare, in a structured and verifiable format, that they take responsibility for a specific piece of content. The protocol is platform-neutral, identity-flexible, and suitable for both real-name and pseudonymous use. It does not evaluate accuracy, originality, or quality; it simply enables people to say: “This is mine, and I stand by it.” By providing a lightweight, human-first declaration format, HGCP aims to preserve the visibility of human agency within an increasingly synthetic information ecosystem.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-taoqiwen-hgcp/.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 October 2025.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

In the rapidly evolving digital world, a flood of content from countless sources fills our screens—much of it now automatically generated and detached from genuine human intent. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly proficient at mimicking human expression, the boundary between real thought and algorithmic generation is blurring.

This rise in synthetic content presents a fundamental question: if we can no longer know who wrote something, can we know whether anyone is willing to stand behind it?

The Human-Generated Content Protocol (HGCP) is a voluntary signing structure that addresses this problem—not by detecting or filtering AI-generated content, but by giving human authors a minimal and declarative way to say: “This is my expression, and I take responsibility for it.”

HGCP is not a detection algorithm, classification tool, or identity system. It is a responsibility declaration format. It enables any writer—regardless of identity type or platform—to attach a timestamped, verifiable statement of authorship to their content.

HGCP is intentionally minimal, non-intrusive, and flexible. It does not require real names or centralized verification. It does not replace content evaluation or moderation. It simply offers a signal: someone, somewhere, chose to stand behind this piece of expression. That signal, once made, can be interpreted and used however communities choose.

This act of signing is a social gesture of responsibility—not a legal admission or factual claim.

2. The Problem of Expression Trust

The internet was originally built to foster human connection and communication. Yet in a world where content creation, duplication, and distribution now approach zero cost, the origin of information has become increasingly obscured.

We once inferred authorship and trust from domain names, writing style, and user profiles—but now, all of these can be simulated by AI. This leads not only to an explosion of noise, but also to a subtle erosion of meaning: readers hesitate to believe; authors hesitate to take credit; platforms hesitate to accept risk.

Many recent proposals have focused on "AI detection"—using classifiers to guess whether a given text was machine-generated. These tools are probabilistic, easily evaded, and often fail as models advance.

HGCP shifts the question entirely. It does not ask, “Was this content human-made?”
It asks, “Is any human willing to say: this was me?”

This seemingly small act—a signed statement of responsibility—may become the most important signal of authorship in an increasingly synthetic information ecosystem. Not because it proves truth or identity, but because it reflects a human's willingness to be known as the author.

3. The Philosophy of HGCP: Responsibility Over Provenance

The core idea of HGCP is not to verify originality, authorship, or human origin of content—but to offer a voluntary, structured way for a person to publicly acknowledge their expression.

Whereas most systems ask, "Who created this?", HGCP asks something simpler and deeper:
"Are you willing to say: I said this?"

Signing under HGCP does not mean the content is accurate, valuable, or unique.
It only means: “This came from me, and I stand by it.” — socially, not legally.

This transforms the act of signing into a declaration of presence—not a claim of authority, truth, or expertise.
To speak is not only to express; it is to be willing to be recognized as the speaker.

HGCP is not anti-AI. It does not reject AI assistance.
If a human chooses to sign something—even if AI helped—they are choosing to take human responsibility for the final output.

HGCP does not care what tools you used, or what identity you chose.
It only cares that someone—a person—was willing to leave their mark and say:
“I won’t deny this is mine.”

That act of responsibility is not a signal of trust.
It is the beginning of traceable expression—not verified authorship.

4. Signature Declaration Structure

HGCP provides a minimal and consistent way for individuals to attach a human-responsible declaration to their expression. The purpose of this signature is not to validate the content's origin or truth, but to acknowledge authorship responsibility.

4.1. Required Fields:

  • signer_id
    A signer-provided identifier that links a human author to a specific declaration.
    This MAY be a stable pseudonym, public key fingerprint, platform handle, or decentralized ID.
    (Examples: "tao_qiwen", "0xDEADBEEF...", "@user42", or "did:example:abc123")

    HGCP does not resolve or validate the authenticity of signer_id.
    The field is purely declarative. Verification, if needed, MUST rely on external infrastructure or cryptographic proof.

  • timestamp
    The UTC time when the signature was created, in [RFC3339] format.
    (Example: "2025-03-29T14:22:00Z")

    This value is provided by the signer and is intended to be informational only.

  • content_hash
    A cryptographic digest of an external piece of content (e.g., a document, platform message, or expressive artifact).
    This field binds the HGCP object to that content and ensures that the signature applies to a specific, immutable version of it.

    The content itself is not embedded in the HGCP structure,
    but MUST be preserved externally in the exact UTF-8 byte representation used during hash computation.
    The hash MUST be computed using the SHA-256 algorithm [RFC6234], Base64-encoded, and prefixed with "sha256:".
    (Example: "sha256:dQnlvaDHYtK6x/kNdYtbImP6Acy8VCq1498WO+CObKk=")

  • hgcp_version
    This field indicates the structural schema version of the declaration.
    It helps implementations interpret the format correctly across protocol evolutions.
    For full context on version compatibility and design principles, see Section 4.6.
    (Example: "0.2")

  • declaration
    A plain, human-written statement affirming authorship and responsibility for the content. The declaration is flexible in form, but SHOULD be meaningful, interpretable, and context-aware.
    It is not legally binding, but serves as an ethical gesture:
    “I said this, and I choose to be recognized as the speaker.”
    (Example: "I acknowledge that the above content was written by me and I take responsibility for it.")

4.2. Optional Fields:

The following fields are optional metadata declarations.
HGCP does not define their behavior, validation logic, or semantics beyond suggestion.
They exist to support flexible human context, not to enforce structure or scoring.

  • tools_used
    Any relevant tools involved in content creation, such as AI assistants or translation software.
    (Example: ["ChatGPT", "DeepL"])

  • revocability
    Indicates whether the signed content can be edited or withdrawn by the signer.
    Suggested values:

  • immutable

  • revocable-with-proof

  • time-limited-editable

    Platforms MAY honor revocation requests based on this field, but are not required to do so.
    (Example: "revocable-with-proof")

  • signature
    An optional cryptographic proof of authorship.
    This may take the form of an OpenPGP signature, a DID-based proof, or a W3C Verifiable Credential. (Example: an OpenPGP block per [RFC9580].)

4.3. Interpretation and Implementation Guidance

Unlike content-integrated signature formats (e.g., PGP-signed files), HGCP is designed to sign arbitrary expressions
without constraining how or where the signed content is stored.
This enables its use across messaging platforms, web interfaces, and decentralized protocols,
without requiring control over the content’s storage location or delivery mechanism.

The timestamp field is not cryptographically bound.
Its accuracy depends entirely on the signer's environment or device clock.
Implementations MUST NOT use this value as a trusted source for ordering, deduplication, or timing logic
unless verified through an external trusted source (e.g., timestamp authority or blockchain anchor).

Tools and platforms MAY choose to interpret or visualize signer_id based on their own logic,
but HGCP itself does not rank or authenticate identities.

The hgcp_version field reflects structural format only.
It MUST NOT be interpreted as a signal of truthfulness, author credibility, or social legitimacy.
HGCP does not treat higher versions as superior in ethical value—only different in structure.
All valid HGCP declarations, regardless of version, represent equally human-responsible expression.

The declaration, tools_used, and other human-authored optional fields are free-form text inputs.
To prevent abuse, implementations:

  • MUST treat all such fields as plain text;

  • MUST escape HTML or scripting content before rendering;

  • SHOULD limit the length and character set of the fields;

  • SHOULD NOT execute, link, or auto-interpret user-provided declarations in any active context.

4.4. Example Signature (Markdown):

markdown signer_id: qiwen2025 timestamp: 2025-03-29T14:22:00Z content_hash: sha256:dQnlvaDHYtK6x/kNdYtbImP6Acy8VCq1498WO+CObKk= hgcp_version: 0.1 declaration: I confirm that the above content was published by me, and I take responsibility as a human author.

4.5. Example HGCP Signature (JSON):

json { "signer_id": "qiwen2025", "timestamp": "2025-03-29T14:22:00Z", "content_hash": "sha256:dQnlvaDHYtK6x/kNdYtbImP6Acy8VCq1498WO+CObKk=", "hgcp_version": "0.1", "declaration": "I confirm that the above content was published by me, and I take responsibility as a human author." }

Optional cryptographic signature(if used):

json { "signature": "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n...\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----" }

4.6. Versioning:

HGCP versions indicate structural schema only.
They exist to support compatibility as the protocol evolves,
not to signal truth value, author credibility, or software sophistication.
All versions are equally valid expressions of human responsibility.

  • v0.1 — Defines the core declaration schema with required fields:
    signer_id, timestamp, content_hash, hgcp_version, and declaration.

  • v0.2 — Introduces optional cryptographic signing via the signature field,
    enabling machine-verifiable authorship for use cases that require stronger proof.

  • Future versions may support additional metadata such as multi-signer declarations,
    structured revocation formats, or content linking.
    However, the core semantics of voluntary, self-recognized responsibility will remain unchanged.

Yes, cryptographic proofs are stronger. But not everyone can, will, or should need to use them. And in HGCP, strength is not what defines humanity — recognition is.

5. Platform and Tool Integration Suggestions

HGCP is platform-neutral and decentralized.
It defines a minimal, voluntary declaration format—not a service, network, or identity protocol.
However, platforms and tools can enhance expression transparency and user agency by supporting HGCP-style signatures.

The following integration suggestions are non-normative and fully optional:

5.1. For content platforms:

  • Support HGCP signature generation (e.g., auto-add timestamp, content hash, and a user-provided declaration)

  • Display HGCP declarations visibly alongside content

  • Allow users to export signed content with metadata (e.g., JSON-LD or plaintext blocks)

  • Provide a "verify hash" feature to check content integrity against the declaration

  • Optionally allow users to report clearly forged or mismatched declarations (without relying on automated detection)

5.2. For authoring tools:

  • Markdown editors, word processors, or note apps can offer local HGCP signing plugins

  • AI-assisted writing tools may include HGCP signature prompts during editing or export

  • Submission systems may include a “human responsibility declaration” option on publication

5.3. For reader tools and browser extensions:

  • Detect and visually highlight HGCP-signed content (e.g., badges, overlays)

  • Let readers inspect declaration structure and metadata

  • Optionally offer hash comparison to verify content integrity

  • HGCP does not define or endorse any scoring, ranking, or reputation system.
    Interpretation of signature patterns or signer behavior is left entirely to the platform or community.
    The protocol only enables expression responsibility—it does not evaluate or score it.

6. Social and Ethical Considerations

HGCP is not a replacement for content governance or moderation systems.
It is a voluntary declaration format designed to restore visibility to human-authored expressions in an increasingly hybrid and synthetic content landscape.

HGCP does not:

HGCP does protect:

HGCP offers a decentralized path to expression responsibility.
Not by enforcing rules or judgments, but by providing a way for individuals to say:

Those who sign are not guaranteed to be believed. But they are present.
They are accountable—not because a system judges them, but because they are willing to be known as the speaker.

HGCP does not create trust. It creates traceable ownership of speech.
It gives those who choose to acknowledge their words a way to be recognized—not as authorities, but as responsible authors.

7. Illustrative Scenarios (Non-Normative)

The following examples are provided purely for illustrative purposes.
They do not constrain the scope of HGCP usage, which applies to any expressive artifact.
These samples show how individuals might voluntarily declare authorship in informal online contexts.

7.1. Example: Personal Blog Post (Pseudonymous)

A blogger signs their post with a stable pseudonym and plain declaration.

json { "signer_id": "silentvoice", "timestamp": "2025-03-29T16:12Z", "content_hash": "sha256:dQnlvaDHYtK6x/kNdYtbImP6Acy8VCq1498WO+CObKk=", "hgcp_version": "0.1", "declaration": "I wrote the above post entirely on my own and stand by it as a human author." }

7.2. Example: Anonymous Discussion Post

An anonymous poster acknowledges human responsibility for their statement.

json { "signer_id": "anon321", "timestamp": "2025-03-29T17:35Z", "content_hash": "sha256:dQnlvaDHYtK6x/kNdYtbImP6Acy8VCq1498WO+CObKk=", "hgcp_version": "0.1", "declaration": "I stand by this statement as an individual human participant in this conversation." }

8. Criticisms and HGCP's Responses

As a voluntary protocol, HGCP is not without its skeptics.
The following are common concerns and clarifications based on HGCP's minimal scope:

8.1. Criticism 1: “Signing doesn’t stop misinformation.”

Response: Correct. HGCP is not a content moderation tool, fact-checking system, or truth validator. Its purpose is not to prevent falsehoods, but to make the presence of human authorship visible.
It simply allows someone to say: “I said this, and I acknowledge it.”

Whether a statement is correct or misleading is a separate question—to be handled by public debate, platform policy, or legal frameworks.
HGCP does not seek to replace those.

8.2. Criticism 2: “Anyone—including bad actors—can sign too.”

Response: True. HGCP is structurally neutral—it permits anyone to claim authorship.

But just as speech itself is morally neutral, signing is simply a visible act of association.
HGCP does not prevent manipulation or abuse. It only makes authorship claims visible and timestamped, enabling others to interpret and respond.

Trust must be earned over time; HGCP merely reveals who is willing to stand behind their words.

8.3. Criticism 3: “Why not require real names?”

Response: HGCP affirms the importance of anonymous and pseudonymous expression.
In many contexts, forced real-name use can threaten safety, chill dissent, or suppress marginalized voices.

Responsibility does not require identity disclosure. It only requires someone to say: “This is mine.” Even a pseudonym—used consistently—is enough to build visible presence and accountability over time.

8.4. Note:

HGCP enables voluntary, declarative authorship acknowledgment.
It complements—but does not replace—other systems of fact-checking, moderation, or trust.
It is not a gatekeeper of credibility. It is a container for voluntary responsibility—a human signal in a synthetic world.

9. Scope and Limits of Human Responsibility

HGCP affirms an ethical gesture of responsibility—not a legal or contractual obligation.

By signing, the author:

However, the meaning of “responsibility” in HGCP must be clearly understood:

Over time, a signer’s behavior—such as consistent authorship, frequent revocations, or contradictory claims—may influence how others interpret their expression history.
Such interpretations are entirely up to readers, communities, or platforms.
They are not part of HGCP’s structure or logic.

HGCP is a signal of authorship, not a system of judgment.
It is a flag of presence—not a badge of truth.

10. Why We Need HGCP Now

In an era where synthetic content floods our screens and truth feels elusive, what we are losing is not just facts—but responsibility.

Expression has never merely been about information. It is about standing behind what one says.

HGCP is a quiet signal. It is not a firewall, not a detection engine—
It is a torch, held by those willing to say:

Those who sign are not necessarily perfect, but they are present.
They are not hiding. They are willing to be named.

HGCP does not stop AI, nor does it determine the truth or value of content.
It offers a decentralized, human-first way to make authorship claims visible—
not for control, but for clarity.

Just as HTTPS makes communication verifiable,
HGCP makes expression attributable.
Not by enforcing identity, but by inviting responsibility.

In an age of artificial voice, what will stand out is not who speaks loudest—
but who is willing to say:
“Yes, this is mine.”

11. Future Extensions and Evolving Use Cases

HGCP is intentionally minimal.
Its current version focuses on text-based, single-signer declarations of human responsibility.

However, real-world expression scenarios are far more diverse.
Future optional companion drafts or community extensions may explore:

Some use cases may inspire optional community-defined labels (e.g., “editor”, “curator”, “translator”).
Such roles should be expressed via declaration text or companion specifications—not as formal protocol fields.

These extensions are not part of the current protocol and remain exploratory.
Any evolution of HGCP should remain faithful to its core principle:

12. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

13. Security Considerations

HGCP does not introduce new network protocols or data exchange layers.
It poses no direct technical threats such as injection, eavesdropping, or man-in-the-middle attacks.

However, HGCP introduces indirect risks, rooted in the potential misuse or misinterpretation of voluntary signature declarations.
These risks are primarily social and structural, not cryptographic.

13.1. Identity Impersonation and Signature Forgery

Without optional cryptographic signing (e.g., OpenPGP), malicious actors may forge declarations using arbitrary signer IDs.
To mitigate impersonation, platforms may support cryptographic binding, identity verification mechanisms, or identity attestations. HGCP itself does not provide or require any identity verification mechanism.
All verification and signer authentication are delegated to platform-level implementations, if desired.

13.2. Mass Signature Automation (Sybil Behavior)

In the absence of rate limits or friction, automated agents could mass-generate content with fake signature blocks to simulate presence at scale.
To reduce such noise, platforms may implement rate controls, account friction, or signature frequency thresholds.

13.3. Content Hash Evasion via Trivial Edits

HGCP uses cryptographic content hashes to bind the declaration to a specific text version.
Even minor changes (e.g., punctuation, emoji) generate different hashes, allowing close but unsigned derivatives to circulate unchallenged.

Platforms may address this via:

  • Content snapshot storage alongside signature metadata

  • Optional use of fuzzy hashing or similarity checks

  • Encouraging authors to sign canonical versions of their work

13.4. Revocation Misuse and Responsibility Evasion

HGCP supports editable or revocable declarations, which enhances flexibility.
However, it may also allow strategic withdrawal or denial of public expression.

Platforms are encouraged to:

  • Retain and display revocation timestamps or signature histories

  • Clearly indicate altered or withdrawn declarations

  • Offer viewers transparent context about change history

13.5. Absence of Native Trust or Scoring Mechanisms

HGCP intentionally avoids any native trust or scoring system.
All interpretations of signature consistency, credibility, or intent are left to the discretion of platforms or communities.
Protocol-level neutrality ensures freedom, but also delegates responsibility for risk assessment to the surrounding ecosystem.

13.6. Final Note

HGCP’s security lies not in enforcement, but in visibility.
It offers no guarantees—only a format in which authors can voluntarily say:
“This is mine. I said this.”

Whether others choose to believe, contest, or ignore such declarations is beyond the protocol’s scope.
HGCP’s minimal structure invites participation, not control.

14. Informative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339]
Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339>.
[RFC6234]
Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6234>.
[RFC9580]
Wouters, P., Ed., Huigens, D., Winter, J., and Y. Niibe, "OpenPGP", RFC 9580, DOI 10.17487/RFC9580, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9580>.

Acknowledgments

This document was initially drafted using ChatGPT (OpenAI), and subsequently edited and approved by the human signer. The signer acknowledges responsibility for the final content.

Author's Address

Qiwen Tao
Independent Researcher