For example, how can the parameters of an AI be made more humane and privacy enhancing? We test and then turn those insights into our legislations. Then we don’t regulate something we don’t have first hand experience with. And we can collaborate with social innovators in a way to the benefit of the common good.
I would worry if people stopped visiting me during my office hours in social innovation lab. I would worry if I toured around Taiwan every week and the social innovators refused to talk to one another. I would worry if people distrusted the internet so much so that they would not be willing to participate in any communication, even if it had end-to-end encryption.
In short, I would worry if plurality disintegrated into small filter bubbles. I think that this is our main threat now. It is not a single person; it is not an ideology. It is just the lack of care—and the lack of being deeply listened to—that threatens plurality and the current democracy.
Intersectionality reminds us that we all have some part of us that is vulnerable, that has suffered from social injustice, and that is in the minority. Through these painful experiences, we can emerge with an authentic voice and listen to people who are suffering for a different reason yet feel the same pain.
When individual voices can represent themselves authentically, that helps us rethink our own experiences of vulnerability. As far as I know, empowering people who are suffering is the best way to scale listening among disintegrating pluralities and to safeguard democracy.
Well, I joined the cabinet to work with, and not for, the government, by my own choosing. So if given the choice again, I would still work on what I am now: Knowledge sharing and cooperation for access to science, technology and innovation.
Early open innovation can decolonise the technological regimes that people are currently using. It’s through open innovation that we can ensure public access to information and protect our fundamental freedoms— not just offline but also online and in mixed reality.
And it’s through open innovation that we can ensure responsive, inclusive and also representational decision making so that the government truly is with the people not for the people.
If you want the official interview, what’s your estimated date for that?
A consent form?
...radically transparent. We can publish the entire conversation to the Internet under Creative Commons Zero, which is public domain.
Yeah, but this conversation would be one that’s already happened. It’s just like something that’s copyright that’s expired. It’s like something that’s written in the 18th century.
No, I mean we can release it into the public domain.
Like Plato. In your research, you can always use Plato.
I see. But this is not the same. We are not publishing the audio file. We’re making an English transcript. All the participants can edit it for 10 days. They get to take out the parts they are not comfortable with.
Also, if they don’t like to appear under their real name, they can choose a pseudonym.
It’s all negotiable.
No, it’s the same policy.
It’s the same policy. It’s always like that.
Yeah, so, in the recent vTaiwan consultations, of the three ones brung by the Guo Ju law firm, the first one was like that. They talk with all the government, public service. They don’t want to be reidentified at all.
Everybody is like, summary opinion. Every speaker is summary opinion. You cannot guess who is that proposed that.
Sure.
That’s my office hour visit protocol.
Yeah, 10 days, but yes.
No, it’s the same protocol. The protocol already says you can take out anything that, by confidentiality, you would not want people to know.
This is very nuanced. Just exactly as you said, there are in-jokes that people outside this conversation will just not get it. When we publish, we just take those in-jokes out, because it doesn’t contribute to the context.
In its most extreme form, I had a journalist interviewing me, and actually, also two representative from AmCham, the American Chamber. They just asked me a lot of questions, and I provide answers, but they don’t want people to know what they have asked.
They took out everything that they spoke out, so it’s just my answers. That’s still valid, because they say, by AmCham confidentiality, whatever of their firm they work with, they wouldn’t allow their employees to disclose what question they have asked the minister publicly.
I am like, “But my words are my words.” They are fine with me publishing my words.
You must spend effort for parts of it to be not open, because you have to actually go in and edit away every sentence. Then if you do nothing, of course, then it’s open.
Yeah, but the fact that you actually go back and take out those pressing questions, or at least make it more mild, it actually creates a room for negotiation.
It is negotiable. Everything I say is public domain, CC0. Now, if you allow for us to publish, for example, the YouTube video, then we always ask CC BY attribution, but even that is negotiable. You can choose, for example, BY-SA.
If you are of a ShareAlike mindset, we agree with ShareAlike as well. That is negotiable.
It just defaults to common attribution for the YouTube, and on the Talk PDIS also, there’s a public interview section that says very clearly, “Everything here is CC BY 4.0.” If you don’t agree with CC BY 4.0, then you can ask me on some other forum. It’s like open is the norm, but we understand there is nuances to the norm.
That’s good.
Yeah, you have to put it very clear on the entrance.
Actually, they did that in g0v summit, during the lightning talk.
There is someone from somewhere that’s not as liberal as Taiwan that says, “During my talk, please mute, and turn the camera toward the audience.” You see some of the facial reaction of the audience, but you don’t see them talking. Actually, only the final words...
Only the final sentence was visible and audible, which is, “Please fight for our freedom with the freedom that you have.”
I think the best thing is just do it incrementally. The best questions come from your initial, like we did that with Tom Atlee. The first interview with him, he has all these preconceptions about what Taiwan, about the Sunflower Movement, and things like that that he read from, I’m sure, Wired or whatever other media.
I wouldn’t say “wildly” inaccurate, but somewhat inaccurate descriptions. Then he had a conception that vTaiwan is very process-based, that it is basically like blockchain, instead of a set of pre-agreed conditions.
There were some weird notions in people’s minds. I’m sure our flow chart doesn’t help.
Then he discovered no, it’s just a bunch of people enjoying food every Wednesday, having fun. Then we had two other conversations. Every time he brought someone from the dynamic facilitation, or from audio, video, because there’s these components in vTaiwan as well.
You ask a question from the angle, once he realized that this is actually not code-based governance, as he thought blockchain governance is.
I don’t mind.
Yeah, of course. I also say a lot of crazy things to Liz, like, “Property is theft from the nature, and identity is theft from the self.” [laughs]
Not at all.
Yeah, we’re donating our voice to the public. This is what we’re doing.
It’s not even a loss, because basically, you still have a copy.
You become understood. It’s a beginning of a conversation or a relationship. Basically, I never see data as some tangible asset. I always see data as a beginning of a relationship, like data flow. If it doesn’t flow, it doesn’t go anywhere.
