The electronic soap box?  The electronic street corner?  The electronic picket?  A tree roots effort?  A voice in the wilderness?
 
Study the history of the Hirata experience regarding their purchase of a new house from Sitterle Homes  The sequence of events.  The proofs, conclusions, results.  The inherent failures within a system which is supposed to protect the public interest.  Why is the behavior of some members of the esteemed corporate/public new house building industry the way it is?  Are the business practices of some, which were easily concealed  in the past, suddenly receiving well deserved public exposure only because of the ease of sharing information on the Internet?  Would the parties involved in this dispute, pushing the wheels of justice behaved differently, were it not for Internet reporting?  Push came to shove with the filing of a lawsuit against the Hirata family.  Were hearts and minds changed through an Internet posting which contributed to the Hirata's receiving justice?  If not for the Internet, would all parties have continued on their merry way, one being unjustly enriched at the expense of the other?  Of course, there would never be an admission or denial of any wrongdoing.  Study the issue.  I think I am pretty accurate in my assessment of a regulatory system which does not protect the public interest.  Acting in good faith is often superseded by self-serving interests.  I think the current regulatory environment assumes all parties will act in good faith.  This is a false assumption.  Some parties must be compelled to behave properly.