The government, far from dictating anything, takes actively the piloted ideas and then just amplifies it through the support of real-time open API and open data. This is what I refer to as reverse procurements.

The idea very simply put is that the economic sector as well as the social sector can call the shots when they see, for example, a better way of distributing a mosque first in the pharmacies, then in convenience stores through mobile apps, and then on kiosk, even vending machines ...

The Taiwan’s record on both the counter pandemic and also recording GDP growth this year has been the top of the world. By showing people that instead of the government knows everything, we instead say, in mandarin, 你行你來 — “If you can do it, do it.”

In Taiwan, we do not make the false trade-off or dilemma between having to sacrifice economic growth in order to counter the pandemic or dance in order to make sure that everybody is still enjoys the freedom of doing business, movement, and so on. We have to make sacrifices in ...

The people queuing in line in the pharmacies can swipe their national health insurance card and see that the map reflects every 30 seconds, the real-time availability in that pharmacy, and so on. By radically trust the citizens, we counter both the infodemic and the pandemic through building mutual trust.

Also, through radical transparency of the YouTubers literally live streaming of the counting process in the ballot boxes and a disinformation about mask distribution is countered through a radical transparency effort done by civic technologists.

We can ensure that people get vaccinated that is to say to see something hilarious before they see that this information package and therefore will not share it in an outrage. The foreign interference, for example, attacking our election systems is countered this way.

In this way, our counter infodemic response, the humor over rumor, emphasizes that for each disinformation campaign that travels outrage, we always push out a meme that travels on joy. Joy has a higher R-value than outrage.

Any new ideas coming in from civil society, for example, a boy who calls and says, “Oh, your rationing mask, but all I get his pink medical mask. I don’t want to wear it to school because I’m afraid my classmates may laugh at me,” the very next day in ...

The collective intelligence not only enables a fast response from the Central Epidemic Command Center that livestreams the responses every day but also through toll free lines like 1922 and chatbots.

The medical officers immediately took the “seven new SARS cases” too hard and then started the health inspection for all flight passengers coming in from Wuhan the very next day, which is the first day of 2020.

Then once this gets detected, for example, last December when Li Wenliang whistleblowing gets up voted this way on the public forum PTT, we’d decided that it was not this information after all because it looks very legit.

On the fast part, we ensure that anybody who detect a disinformation online even on end-to-end encrypted channels, they can flag it, not to the authorities but rather to professional journalists, as well as civic technologists running a crowdsource fact-checking project that anyone can join.

Thank you for the great question. In Taiwan, we managed to counter the pandemic with no lockdown and the infodemic with no takedown. Thanks to digital democracy. In addition to social innovation, we have three pillars. That’s fast, fair, and fun.

Thank you. Live long and prosper.

If the R-value is rather under one, then even if they achieve perfect harmony, kumbaya, and all that during the deliberative space, that will not have a impact to the society. Think about fun and optimize for fun. There is no perfect offering.

Increase the R-value. Make it viral. Make it ideas that’s worth spreading. This is in any sortition, any citizen assembly. The final question is that can they bring back to their community the rough consensus they have reached in a deliberative space. If there’s sufficient amount of cute cats, dogs ...

We feel that the petitioners, actually, petitioners tell us they were being sidelined and so on. The Taiwan model is not a model that you simply copy. It is rather a idea, a Buckminster Fuller-ian idea that instead of fighting a old system, make new system that will make the ...

Just today, we changed our rules so that we take at least one petition and one bureaucrat-proposed ideas each month so that each side would not feel neglected by the voting that is done by our participation officers. Last month, all the cases that we handled was initiated by the ...

This is important, because there is no perfect offering. In Taiwan, all these mechanisms that I described to you today is under essentially monthly or even weekly iteration.

In the words of Leonard Cohen — “Ring the bells that still can ring and forget your perfect offering.”

Only when they feel as co-creators who can essentially fact-check all our presidential candidates – that actually happened earlier this January. All our presidential debates and platforms and so on are crowdsource fact-checked by random bunch of people, who many of them are just high schoolers or even primary schoolers, ...

That is part of our new curriculum starting in the previous year.

The whole point is that starting from the first grade to make sure that people feel as citizens even long before they have the right to vote, that they can weave their curation, their data stewardship, into the fabric of the decision-making, first in their school, then in their community ...

With AirBoxes, with those participatory mechanisms, with people proposing plastic straws need to be banned and so on, obviously they are creative producers. They are policy producers. They are also data producers when they curate the water and air quality measurements and so on.

We now replace that with the word “competence”. By media competence, we mean the capability to produce media. Random primary-schoolers nowadays maybe have more Instagram followers than I do. Obviously, they are producers of media.

I would argue that if you teach about literacy you will not meet the necessary governance criteria in the civil society. That is why in the K-12 curriculum in Taiwan starting last year, which I’m part of the committee to make the new curriculum, we officially dropped the word “literacy” ...

That is one that is worth a worldwide conversation, much as the worldwide conversations around the Paris COP.

We are in the post-SDG era. We will maybe just drop the multilateral part altogether in forming of the groups and in setting of the agenda. How is that even possible? How could a non-multilateral or very limited multilateral process be made when doing this post-SDG SDGs? That is a ...

Interestingly, the climate change one may be actually improved by the coronavirus. In any case, we will, by 2030, make another run at something like the SDG and just continuing the trend from the multilateral trend in the MDG to the hybrid multilateral/multi-stakeholder model that is including the major groups ...

The global political objective, I think one of the global objective is around the idea of sustainable development itself. As we know, by year 2030, we will meet some SDG targets, and we will miss some. Hopefully, we meet more than what we miss. There are structural issues, such as ...

Is it rivers and the mountains that are currently disenfranchised? There are many possible answers that is not captured by that RFC. I would love to hear about those answers too in addition to what is in that particular RFC. I hope that answers your question.

This would provide a reflex space for each and every participant of that panel. You just ask the simple question that IETF just answered. Then ask the people, how would you answer differently? For whom do we go through the pain of gathering rough consensus and writing running code. Is ...

A multi-stakeholder conversation culture, while it may produce very good consensus, maybe only benefit people who can afford to subscribe to the IETF working group email loops. These are a strict minority of the people. The question that is asked on that RFC, for whom do we go through the ...

This is important, because this is the first time that IETF really openly say that IETF is a political organization in the traditional sense of the politics, that the end users is the end goal of the Internet’s existence. "Rough consensus and running code" was always defined very roughly... Only ...

Yeah, that was the last few words that I missed. For the first question, I think a great question to ask is just to take the RFC 8890, the very recent, just past RFC. The title was The Internet is for End Users.

I didn’t quite get the last sentence. I didn’t quite get the second one. I got the first one about a question to the future of Internet deliberations.

All the large structural issues, like what is platform economy, what is surveillance capitalism, and so on, can be boiled down to maybe like 10 or a dozen typical issues, like the UberX case, and if you resolve them one by one, like the 40 digital dialogue we had with ...

They want to collaborate with people who are creative people who can turn, for example, the water refill stations into a Pokémon game so people don’t buy plastic bottles any more, and things like that. These are all very small things, I admit.

The other one, as example, is from our environmental protection agency looking to automate the environmental standard checks, on especially motorcycles and things like that, to get people into a more circular economy mindset when it comes to the environmental externalities. That is, of course, a very open question. They ...

The one from the petition was about the shipping fraud from the Facebook Marketplace that comes all the way from PRC and paid by the receiver. That’s a citizens’ initiative.

Basically, going to where the pain is, empower people closest to the pain. Don’t introduce new systems for new systems’ sake, but rather, assist people who are already overwhelmed. Just this morning actually, a couple of hours ago, we voted for our, this month’s cases for collaborative meetings as I ...

If this case works, they can say, oh, I’m just proposing this. I get all the credit, and actually they get promoted very quickly, but if it doesn’t work after three months or after deliberation, they can say, oh, I am just participating in a hackathon. It’s all the petitioner’s ...

It’s simple. Basically, we build them as time saving tools. We actively seek out the places where they feel that it’s the most time consuming and automate these first, because actually, the vast majority, I would say, of Presidential Hackathon cases started with someone in the trenches, in mid to ...

Actually, there are Japanese rap bands that remixes my material as their songs. This is not hypothetical. [laughs] In anyway, they can present it however they want. That answers the part about the transparency of the algorithm, as well as the earlier question about how to make sure that bureaucrats ...

These two are kind of easy to explain. These are quite transparent algorithms as algorithms go, as compared to RNNs, and CNNs, and so on. In our Pol.is setting, there is always an open data check box, and we check it. Everybody can download the open data and visualize it ...

Anyway, what I’m trying to get to is that, of course, as you correctly witnessed, that Pol.is is really not machine learning. It’s not deep learning. It’s not AI in the current generation. It’s AI in the previous generation. That is to say, it’s just a very simple dimensional reduction ...

The US-Taiwan military collaboration is actually one of the Pol.is topics in the AIT@40 digital dialogue. I pasted a link to the chat room. That’s that part of the question. I don’t know about UK military presence. Maybe we need to talk to our Foreign Service. [laughs] We have Ambassador ...

OK.

It didn’t stabilize until maybe three weeks in the future, but we did fail maybe 10 times during those iterations.