But the Occupy had support by 91 percent of Taiwan population.

But they are.

Yeah. So? What’s wrong with moderate opinions?

Yes, and if you cannot reach consensus, it’s because you’re not being specific enough. There’s a whole theory about that. It’s called overlapping consensus.

But it’s OK. It’s like a warrant that’s vouched by the other side of the capital. What I’m saying is that when you’re specific enough, it’s always possible to reach consensus.

We reached consensus, actually, on that point, saying the reputation stock must not be more than 49 percent of the total capital of the company, meaning that they’re not going to get majority voting power just because they’re Zuckerberg.

If you allow this completely, like in Cayman Islands, you will have billion-dollar companies in Taiwan, but it means nothing, but it will be very confusing to the market and also to people. The ministry of economics think very strongly that we shouldn’t allow reputation stocks, because it will violate ...

The problem is that from the traditional civil law viewpoint, this is inflating the entire share out of thin air, not backed by anything that has property or insurance or anything behind it.

For some entrepreneurs, they would say, just because I am Zuckerberg, I’m automatically worth this many voting power and this many shares. Some VCs will believe that, so they will enter a private negotiation with compatible bonds or something that, in effect, gives all the voting power to this guy ...

Yeah, yeah, but we had that discussion actually, in the telework deliberation, because one of the main points here is whether the negotiation between the shareholders and the star up-funders to value their reputation, because reputation cannot be evaluated, not like patents or anything. There’s no reputation certification agency.

We have the individual employees or whatever, and they have a labor union or something, or they don’t have a union, but there is some sort of links. What you’re saying is whether the negotiation here takes precedence or, for example, this is the labor ministry, for example, or whether ...

But this is not about work hour. What you were talking about is agenda-setting power and everything related to labor.

Correct. Whether the private sector or the public sector should take precedence.

Yeah, and also other points in the style like disability claims and things like that. Anything else you have on your mind?

Work hours?

Labor law.

When you say things can’t be solved by consensus what are you thinking? What’s in your mind?

Once they start share those links they could form meaningful discussions by asking first and then by receiving timely replies. Finally, by doing real deliberation like face-to-face one we had before, and if they have a lot of time to go into this general setting power. That’s a very long ...

They were able to work together. That’s what I’m doing nowadays basically, is by transforming this kind of lobbying that happened before with ideological sites and try to do some kind of a scene of the mind that gets people into the mental state of seeing each other’s positions on ...

Basically, for each of the seven items that were shown Airbnb says, "Yes, we have considered. We agree our program already changed. We were willing," so on. There’s nothing to deliberate. By the end of it the hotel, hostel and youth hotel association people said, "Welcome to Taiwan and booking ...

Again, we did this analysis but the magical thing is that Airbnb people have said, "We will study your Uber case. We know exactly what you’re going to do so for Taiwan specifically we’re going to introduce the insurance program that protects the tenants. Also for Taiwan specifically, their co-founder ...

We discovered that while people could agree being a landlord is great, people don’t actually want to live in Airbnb because there is no insurance protection Airbnb introduced for the tenants and so on.

Of course most people in Taiwan did not take Airbnb, which is why we’re just collecting facts and reflections and not building on decisions. The people who have not used Airbnb before has a very strong consensus already. That’s Group 4. We said theirs are at least as important as ...

This Airbnb deliberation, the thee group of people who argue for different kind of strictness of Airbnb are actually all Airbnb users because they send an email to all the Airbnb telling people who have used Airbnb before, saying, "Go to the Taiwan. Go to your support for Airbnb." Whereas ...

One of the side effects of that is that when we do next Airbnb their people know that we’re using Wikipedia for the fact presentation, so they edited Wikipedia, their sympathisers, I have no proof it’s them, to add more facts.

They could be legalised, but because they are not here yet they could get fined, but no demonstration process will change this anymore because people had a very thorough discussion about this problem already.

The sentiments everybody agrees and we can see Uber is maybe here, and the government now says, "It’s totally half the mandate to keep punishing them until they agree on those final two points that is agreed by all passengers and drivers in Taiwan, so once they are here they ...

There is some other points that are not checked. For example, they don’t want to register as a local company to file with the local city government’s tax purposes. It’s like a progress fire. There’s six consensuses and there’s three or four sentiments.

Then the independent association says, "Uber takes us 20 percent cut. If they do two percent, we’ll work with them tomorrow." It’s a matter of economics. Basically, what they’re saying if they’re plus tax they’re willing to share their profit then we can have Uber taxi in Taiwan as long ...

The fleet people said, "We actually just hear about surge pricing. One of the six consensus when they join multiple fleets we are at a disadvantage if we agree to that but they could have surge pricing on rainy days and we can’t. If the government is willing to relax ...

I asked the Ministry of Transport, "When you said they’re illegal, did you actually run any interview with Uber about their action or their operation or did you just do a legalistic literal interpretation?" They said, "We just did a legalistic interpretation. We did not actually talk so we’re happy ...

Then the association says, "I just checked with the CEO. The CEO doesn’t have insurance term printed with him today," but then their lawyer says, "We will provide insurance terms to the ministry right after the meeting and they can happily share that if they want." That’s one checked.

When I was deliberating this, for example, the CEO of Uber Taiwan says, "We will actually claim for insurance if the passenger gets damaged." That’s one of the six points. I asked, "How many claims has happened so far?" It was two years or so of operation and Ku said, ...

Then we did an analysis on all those six things across countries, and then we sit down with everybody and starting extracting comments out of those six things and the three sentiments. What do you feel about that? Would you agree? This is the association for independent drivers, fleets, other ...

Finally, the drivers should be able to join multiple platforms. These are the six suggestions that has global consensus that are actual suggestions and not just feelings. These become our agenda.

The registration is mandatory, but if you want to avoid tax, then you can maybe carry two passengers per day because you go to work and you’re back to work. If you’re using Uber as a ride share then naturally you can avoid tax because it’s ride sharing. if you’re ...

If they’re registered, their registration should be visible, like a medallion maybe on the front of the windshield or something and display inside so you know who you’re calling. This is about public safety, like food and medicine so it warrants being more strict, not just economic issue.

Then this sentiment saying we don’t argue with terrorists started maybe 70 percent plus, but by third week it’s now just 35 percent plus. On the fourth week it dropped again. As the time goes on people says, "OK, maybe we should sit down and talk." Now by the fourth ...

This argument convinced even the Uber people. For Uber, when it’s legalised it becomes the first company to satisfy this requirement, so this is a win for everybody. He wins the trophy. His idea was the most consensus.

Somebody from Mozilla Taiwan, actually a hacker, a hacktivist, wins the trophy for the most consensus by saying, "The government should introduce the same five-star rating system to regular taxis, so that the quality would improve, you can report bad taxis, so that a taxi get the same quality as ...

By the second week things start to appear that convince everybody because this is shown randomly. Out of maybe 4,000 people, only 400 people saw this comment, but almost everybody who saw this comment saying that the law should change with time agrees. This is the general, why don’t you ...

You can see that they convinced most of the people, including group two, and just like saying this they gained two percent of people because some taxi drivers jumped here. They want to present in the global population, but even this is not good enough. This is just 52 globally. ...

Group two says, "But now all the taxis are forced to join the fleet because the capital is an engine used advertisement and more ways to earn money than just the cab. If you don’t join a fleet you don’t get those extra incomes, so the independent driver in union ...

By the end of first week, group one revised their position saying, "OK, so maybe all their ride sharing platforms should be fined." MOTC maybe too specific to Uber, but it’s do their job. This is more moderate so it gets more support.

We say only ideas with more than 80 percent in global maturity gets to the agenda. These are not good for the agenda. They have to come up with something to convince more people in their group. Are you taking this?

This group of people says, "Even if there’s a lot of taxi in front of me, I always call a Uber." These are the Uber addicts, so to speak and these are the anti-Uber people, but if you multiply the numbers, none of this is in majority.

People can write new sentiments to try to win more consensuses in their own group and there’s a visualisation of other groups, and this is published. On the first week, there were Uber drivers, taxi drivers, Uber passengers, other passengers, and then a significant fraction of people thinks it’s already ...

That’s it. We just ask for five seconds of your time and when you answer that, your position starts to change in visualisation, which is your friends actually. If you sign in on Facebook, you see your friends belonging to four different groups. They are not really your enemies. They ...

This is the interface, designed for drivers. We only have one red light time. No voting while driving, but [laughs] they all use mobile phones. They don’t really have computers in their cars. This is a mobile phone. On your phone, you just see one single sentiment like insurance for ...

We say that we leave to all the drivers and your passengers to decide what we will talk about, and then everything is open data, so that people can make independent analysis to make sure we’re not cheating. Then we ask people’s feelings are there, what do you think?