[tptacek]

In every discussion like this I've ever read on HN, the implicit assumption is: all the companies who take advantage of the new regulatory system will be like Uber.

Why is that a valid assumption? The Internet is full of sleazy companies utterly undeserving of anyone's trust.

[gojomo]

And in the world of real interactions (like the Uber and AirBnb domains), it quickly becomes obvious that they are sleazy unaccountable companies, and they die, faster than regulators could even send cease & desist faxes.

Where the stakes matter, community self-protection can now ramp up faster, make fairer distinctions, and preserve flexibility better than (often-incumbent-captured) regulatory agencies.

[ef4]

No, that's not the assumption at all.

The assumption is that any business that's not deserving of trust is very easy to detect and kill in the internet era, solely through the distributed actions of consumers with good access to information.

And this distributed form of regulation is significantly less corruptible than centralized, political regulation.

[nitrogen]

Sadly, it seems that "good access to information" is the weak link in this chain, which can easily be broken by SEO, astroturfing, and the like.

[randall]

Can you imagine someone building an Uber scale business built on SEO, astroturfing, and the like and people continuing to use it? I can't.

[nitrogen]

I can definitely imagine an incumbent company using SEO and astroturfing to prevent people from knowing a would-be Uber-sized company exists.

[benched]

Really? That's what this is about? Whether Yelp reviews can substitute for government regulation?

[Schwolop]

Perhaps it's not a valid assumption - but does it matter? A large chunk of the point of the 2.0 regulation model (the graphic in the OP) is that over time reputation is crowd-sourced. Can we not just live with the existence of sleazy companies in the knowledge that over time they'll be weaned out?

[InclinedPlane]

How does that differ from the norms of non-internet companies?