- by PredictableChaos, Data Doctor
- 1/31/2014 11:22:33 PM
Michael, rbaz, I don't think the legislative process will ever be able to keep up with changes in technology. Democracy takes time, ideas have to be discussed, and new tech has to be widely understood before it can be a topic of debate.
- 1/31/2014 2:55:44 PM
I like the indomitable American spirit bit, but I'm too tired at the end of the week for hard and endless work. I need to take a nap, at least.
You're right that it's going to take a long time, though. I wonder whether this kind of paradigm shift happens every few years, or things are just particularly strange and different now that the Internet has pervaded every aspect of public life.
- 1/31/2014 2:48:01 PM
Michael, that's the million dollar question. I don't believe it to be a singular problem with a simple singular fix. It's a process that at times, like sausage making is ugly, stinks and can induce a defeatist outlook. Ultimately if we remain engaged, persistent and vigilant citizens, with our American spirit and resilience, we will see real progress. Its hard and endless work. I must sound like an evangelist.
- 1/31/2014 1:37:25 PM
I don't mean us, specifically, rbaz, but the general societal merry-go-round. Technology moves forward. A year later, politicians wake up and realize it's being misused, make some speeches, and pretend that they're on the cutting edge. Technology moves forward again. Rinse, repeat.
What do you think we can do to break the cycle, rbaz? How do we kick government, legislation, and enforcement into real time?
- 1/31/2014 1:33:48 PM
Yes Michael, we are rehashing. Complain all we want about various failings, but ultimately we have ourselves to blame. Quoting from a source that escapes me now, 'we have met the enemy and he is us!'.
- 1/31/2014 1:19:31 PM
Of course, then we run into problems with over-regulation and under-enforcement. But that's what keeps the politicians' windbags full and perpetuates the cycle of indignation. This goes back to the discussion we're having about elected officials, but I think it bears repeating. Doesn't anyone notice that we're just rehashing the same tropes and patterns over and over?
- 1/31/2014 1:15:54 PM
Weren't we just talking about ethics to go along with certification? Solicitation for positive reviews is getting pervasive and should be scorned. It guts the process of its good intent. Isn't any wonder why we need so many regulatory codes. We too often defer our common sense to legality.
- 1/31/2014 1:04:56 PM
I think that's very wise, rbaz, considering how often we've heard about online reviews being bought and paid for. Or secured through dubious means. I have a friend who visited a doctor -- and this doctor had 100% positive reviews online. In a nutshell, he said he'd waive the co-pay and just inflate his insurance claim -- a significant savings to the patient -- in return for a positive review.
- 1/31/2014 1:01:50 PM
I go with direct referrals from a trusted colleague, or even three connections removed before I would entertain an online referral. Sometimes it's difficult to tell if the referrer is acting for your or the referred interest. Call me the suspicious one.
- 1/31/2014 12:48:04 PM
That's a very important point, rbaz, and thanks for bringing it up. Certification can help ensure that the person you're dealing with has requisite knowledge -- but you have to make sure these certs are up to date. When it comes to referrals, though, do you think online reviews are worthwhile, or can they be manipulated too easily?
ANALYTICS IN ACTION
INFOGRAPHICSVIEW ALL +
- by James M. Connolly