Shared publicly  - 
I'm doing a Google+ Hangout with +Tim O'Reilly at 11am Pacific time tomorrow (Tuesday, April 23rd). We'll be talking about "how should government regulation be updated for the 21st century?" We'll also have Sophie Raseman from the US Department of Treasury as well as Brandon Ballinger from Sift Science, a start-up that tackles fraud on the net. I'll bring my point of view from working on webspam, and it should be a lot of fun. Hope to see you there!

More info here:
Reinventing Regulation

I'm doing a Google+ Hangout next week (April 23, 11 am PT) on a subject that I've been thinking about for a while: how should government regulation be updated for the 21st century?  Regulation has a bad name, largely because it is so easy to think of so many examples where it's done badly. When regulatory systems work, we take them for granted.

For example, without the "regulation" imposed by anti-spam efforts on the net, email would be unusable, search results would be useless, and reasonable discussions on blogs and other online forums impossible. Without the regulatory efforts of credit card fraud detection, e-commerce would be impossible. Without the regulatory efforts of the fuel injection system in your car, the traffic control system on a subway system, or the autopilot in an aircraft, transportation would be reduced to a crawl.

Each of these positive regulatory examples teaches us something about how to reinvent government regulation.  That's a topic I'll be exploring in conversation with +Matt Cutts of the Google Search team, Sophie Raseman of the US Department of Treasury, and +Brandon Ballinger, the co-founder of Sift Science, an anti-fraud internet startup.

(It's also worth thinking about how Amazon ratings, eBay reputation, NetFlix recommendations, Yelp reviews, and other reputation systems are also examples of regulatory systems that can potentially replace, augment, or transform our notion of the regulator as gatekeeper or policeman into a notion of a system that helps us get where we want to go.)

I don't have answers. I do have questions. I'm hoping that I can get a whole lot of people, both inside and outside government, thinking with me.
Charles Evans's profile photoMohammed Hamada's profile photoMatt Cutts's profile photoJack SQLDialect's profile photo
Stupid Question, but how do we join or participate in tomorrows hangout?
+Tim O'Reilly   The irony, of course, as I frequently note, is that governments overall are mostly moving toward more heavy-handed regulatory approaches, and to the extent that reputation systems can be gamed, this only feeds into governments' desires to do it their way.  That's the thumbnail -- the actual issues are much more complex, as we know.
+Louis Sanchez I am not 100% either but I am sure we will know if we keep watch on Matt's posts tomorrow and the Reinventors page linked above. Wow this is going to be cool!
I think the short answer: more openness and more transparency. 
This is part of the age-old flaw of "If only I were in charge, things would be managed a lot better."  Regulation turned out bad for a reason, not just bad luck.  People weren't more stupid before.  Their motives weren't bad/worse.  This is what happens when you put people in charge of tell other people what they must do, and what they cannot do.  It all sounds so well as long as you imagine that those people doing the regulating will do exactly what YOU want them to do.  But once they are given the power, gee what do you think happens?  They start doing things with which you disagree.  This has always happened throughout the history of the human race.
Should be an interesting discussion, although I think blaming the 2008 financial crisis solely on high frequency trading is a bit of a reach... 
Who is blaming the 2008 financial trading on "high frequency trading?"  No serious person I've ever heard.  The 2008 situation was the housing bubble collapsing, the mirror image of the previous decade's upswing in prices.
+Anton Wahlman Straight from the link... "The 2008 Financial Crash posed a stark reminder about how out-gunned government regulators were compared to the big financial services companies that leveraged state-of-the-art computer technologies to design super-complex deals and make lightning-fast trades."
Well, if that's what that "report" says, it's clearly written by someone who doesn't have a clue, and most likely wasn't working in a reasonably well-positioned spot in the industry at the time.  Every person who knows any basic logic knows that if housing prices starts to give back 10% or 20% or 30% of the 100%300% gains over the previous decade, and you're leveraged to 95% or so, the whole food chain collapses.  It's no different than you getting a margin account with a broker, buying a stock, and then when the stock does down you get a margin call - game over.  No mystery at all in this.
Can you address how 90% of our 2013 taxes were e-filed, mostly aided by a private company, and yet the IRS still remains the same size
Regulation, it all comes from entropy. The nature strikes to be untidy. Without regulation weed grows deliberately. Deliberalisation grows the entropy. That's why we are not surrounded by tirannosauruses :D and have technology.
I disagree. Regulations simply means that either a commercial solution or a peer to peer opensource solution wasnt required. That, or regs came & then solutions to implement regs. But the community wouldve self regulated anyway. Social media has no problem naming & shaming & inventing filters itself. Regulations are required where there is an imbalance - there is no longer an imbalance. 
An interesting subject for discussion. I am a bit skeptical of the implied assumption that regulators just need some magical "open source" special sauce to achieve a breakthrough - - but I'll be interested to see where this goes. 
I spent 15 years in regulatory compliance for one of the alphabet agencies. Here is what I think should be done before any regulation can be a put in place by an agency or as a CFR. It should be sent to a randomly selected group of 500 business or individuals that will be affected by the regulation. If more than 250 agree that the regulation should be implemented than the regulation should be subject to the require hearing process before it becomes a federal code.
actually panda is fighting with lion(black-hat seo) for now so if you are black-hat seo then take a side - there is no life for web spammer, keep it up Matt.
Add a comment...