The basic idea I have is that when you bring to market a new technological product, you need to register it with your government/jurisdiction and depending on a few params (maybe company size, revenue, funding, industry/vertical etc.) provide more information.

Similar to tax and accounting regulations, as you grow these regulations grow, too. For example you might need to provide risks and threats analyses for your technology.

You're liable to provide this information to the best of your ability given context (e.g., they wouldn't require a 30 page risk analysis from a indie hacker who has 20 users). If it turns out that you provided false information delibrately, or acted in bad faith, there are consequences like fines, bans, and so on.

Of course, based on your technology the government can prohbit you from bringing it to market, add constraints or require more info.

How confident are you that the government could accurately assess the risk of any technology? Why couldn't I just write the same risks for any given social networking site and copy-paste it every single time I was faced with a compliance form like the one you described. This all just sounds like an exercise in pointless box ticking but that just might be my deep skepticism of governments talking.

Even if they could assess those risks, how confident are we that the government wouldn't err far too much on the side of risk aversion? Bureaucrats and politicians would see no upside in allowing a medium-risk high-reward venture to go ahead, since the outcome is binary for them - get the same salary regardless or get fired if something goes wrong.

I think the idea is terrible. You want laws to be prescribed and debated, not allow some administrators to make shit up on the spot.