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.
If information wants to be free, then data wants to flow. The idea, very simply put, is that once your personal data is in somebody else’s care, you can start asking what they’re doing with it. They can be held accountable for it.
You can have a discussion about the proper use, and even what purpose means, and things like that. It enables a whole different spectrum of conversation once you think of it as a relationship.
Which is why I always say, if there’s transparency without accountability, or if there’s participation, but with no inclusion, then that’s openwashing.
Like Patreon?
That’s still Patreon. Patreon is like that.
On the other hand, that’s only if the creator want to reward it at some tier.
The giver gets to decide, and also the creator can say, at some level, you start can have weekly conversation with me, at which point, I only allow real name donors, and things like that.
Yeah.
Yeah, it does.
I do agree. This is why I use Creative Commons Zero instead of attribution for all my code.
Zero means if you use my code, or you quote something I say, I don’t want attribution. I don’t require attribution. It’s just into the commons. It’s a little bit like the donation that you just mentioned, because then we’re just donating into this pool of knowledge, and there’s no need to have any name attached to it.
No, not at all. It’s just your API.
You mean like opt-out systems?
Exactly.
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, Sandy.
Yes, of course.
We’re on the same council of collective intelligence, and we met in Taiwan during WCIT.
Social physics.
We kind of do a little bit of that in our New York workshop.
Go ahead.
Yeah, “Social Physics.”
We have a lot of free room in the basement, so feel free to...
