It’s called [Taiwanese] or the Endowed City, which is working with people who are in wheelchairs and are usually street vendors selling, I don’t know, chewing gums, or tissue papers, and so on. Working with them, in a way, through excellent visual assets drawn and designed by people with Down’s ...

There’s many organizations operating for more than 20 years through co-ops, through foundations, through companies and so on that reinforces these forces. I would use one example because it’s literally happening in my office, in the social innovation lab in Taiwan.

In Taiwan, we have a long history of social innovators who took something that looks like opposing forces like the capitalistic regime and the social solidarity regime, into something that is collaborative and adds to each other.

I would suggest the simple fix, that is the Newsfeed Eradicator that can make this parasitic/symbiotic relationship go away. It makes you much happier. At least, it made me much happier. [laughs] About bringing this kind of freedom to the masses, I would just use one particular example. It will ...

The wall is something else. You do nothing and then things that fit your self-image that is done by symbiotic, since you are also playing, a symbiotic relation AI that’s building for you, which is the filter bubble or whatever thing that you’re describing.

It does keep Facebook in its more intentional part. You can still use it like a blog to post something. You can use it like a search engine. You can search for a hashtag. You can visit your friend’s profile. You can visit a Facebook page. You can watch your ...

What it does is very simple. It takes the wall away and replace it with something inspiring. The effect, very simply, is that it frees you from the algorithm meddling, manufactured addiction, the fear of missing out, and many other mental health hazards.

I’ve been working with this plug-in, in both mobile and desktop version, for more than two years now. It’s called, very simply, the Newsfeed Eradicator. It tears down the Facebook wall, so to speak, and replace it with some inspiring quote. In this instance Adler. You can a get different ...

I can take the Facebook one. That brings us to a third kind of freedom, right? It’s not just freedom to do something or freedom for some kind of people but also freedom from something, negative freedom. I think that’s the philosophical term. For your Facebook feed, I would like ...

Yeah. Maybe you can help holding it.

Would you like to...?

Yeah, please. Is there a spare microphone or should we take Shu Lea’s?

Do we have a spare microphone?

I think these are two very different takes on freedom that will warrant different pathways into praxis. I don’t even know the freedom they refer to in these two verbs are the same freedoms. Does Paul have something?

Of course, we can objectively say there was less freedom of assembly, of publishing, of speech, of whatever 30 years before. Compared to now, I think we can say that. It also says the possibility of transfer, which means that it’s got a complete transfer. Once you have this freedom ...

It’s a very progressive view, which was true, certainly is true in Taiwan. I still remember the Martial law days when I was a young child. There’s, of course, less freedom, and it’s a objective fact because when people publish something the rulers don’t want to see, they get disappeared.

I think these represent two different views of freedom. I wouldn’t even talk about virtual. One is that freedom is something that you need to fight for. It is never complete. You can get a translated version, and maybe you open up some possibility and the next generation will have ...

If you [laughs] translate, you’re really bringing a copy, maybe a imperfect one, but you’re bringing a copy. If you transfer, it kind of means that the original is gone. It make it to the other end. It’s not a copy, it’s the same thing.

They used...By "they," I mean this person who calls themself, "How would you translate a metaphor?" which is great name, by the way. They used translate/transfer, but that is a very interesting combination because it’s almost never together.

Even, we can problematize this "development" word itself. Why not just sustain? Why development? What’s development for? These things, I do agree that we need to critically examine and re-develop until we don’t just think in terms of development.

Many part of the SDGs are still defined, for example, in terms of the gross domestic product, which is now widely seen as a bankrupt metric for any kind of progress whatsoever. Post-GDP well-being is actually a large part of the sustainable development discourse.

That is, I think, a genuine grammar change, because it means that no matter where you are, as long as you are on the planet, you want to get there, somewhere, regardless of developed or developing. But I do agree it’s not going far enough.

I totally agree. Back in 2015 when the Sustainable Goals was first defined as the global goals, one of its so-called pinnacle of a philosophical change is that it stops talking about developing nations and developed nations, which was a huge thing back in the Millennium Development Goals.

Poetic license.

The -nation of imagination, it is everyday action. That is cooperative, to answer Shu Lea’s question, is to hold similar thought patterns constitutive in mind but then do actions that are within the spirit of the constitution, but not the regulative idea -- which are really just ideas -- you ...

We open it up to share with everyone. Of course, we don’t do 100 percent on any of this, but every day, we make a little bit more contribution toward these goals. These are regulative in nature. I would say, of course, the formation, the imagi- of imagination is utopian.

Once we hold the image of, for example, as digital minister, I hold the image of the 17.18 of enhancing availability of reliable data. I hold the image of 17.17, of encouraging effective cross-sectoral partnerships, and 17.6, which is if we make an innovation, we don’t colonize other place in ...

They are just goals. They don’t say how to reach those goals. If we don’t keep these in mind, the unity itself and the very possibility of breaking apart from the prisons that is the individual sectors and individual movements become impossible.

On the other hand, it is what Immanuel Kant would say a regulative thought or a regulative concept in the sense that if we are to proceed as a unity, we have to hold certain patterns of thoughts in mind. It’s not that they’re constitutive, meaning that we can’t actually ...

Philosophy itself, I admit it is utopian to think that people working on economic growth, people working on environmental protection and working on social progress can somehow magically reinforce each other’s work. Of course, that is utopian thought.

They collected all those wishes and merged them into 169 targets and say, "If we reach these targets by 2030, then everybody seems like it’s the world they want." They make it such that if you work on any of those targets, it will not harm people working on any ...

I will not deny that. What they did, the UNDP did, is that around 2012 or so, they started planning a questionnaire to ask more than one million people in the world what is the future you want to see in the year 2030? There’s one million voices. Their report ...

To many people indeed, I would also make the case that even the SDGs itself that we need by year 2030 get to the point of there’s no poverty, where there’s education for everyone, where there’s access to justice and things like that and climate change and affordable energy and ...

To that question, I would simply want to show this 17 colors that I’m wearing on my shirt all the time. These are what the United Nations call the sustainable development goals, or the SDGs.

It enables people who view the world through a particular lens to nevertheless compose something that can be understood and interacted with by people who view the world with a different lens. That was considered impossible or at least extremely difficult 10 years ago. We did that anyway. When we ...

There’s many different world views. Back when we were doing the Perl 6 language, which now has a name called Raku, or in Japanese, I think it’s just happiness. The Raku language is now done in the sense that it’s a stable language that’s running in computers.

The computer language try to bring together different paradigms of programmers thinking about a world of the functional paradigm, of thinking the world as mathematics; or the object-oriented paradigm where people think of the world as objects interacting with each other; or the imperative, where people think of machines as ...

Sure. I have been called an imagineer, I think imagineering is a real word, when I worked on a new computer language.

If you choose to be a non-binary in your home country, if your passport says you’re non-binary, then here you’re also non-binary. Our entire computer code system has to be rewritten to recognize the potentiality of a non-binary gender. I’m saying this purely on a code level. This is not ...

What do we do of foreign nationals when they become getting this new numbers that are non-binary? Do we force them to choose eight or nine or do we roll a dice or something? The result is that we make the number seven the non-binary digit.

That brings a interesting thing because there’s many countries with passport of a non-binary gender now. We, traditionally, use the second digit to distinguish between the genders.

That is a change in the design of the code, not the legal code, just computer code, just the numbering system to provide more inclusive access of visitors, permanent residents and everybody in between, who don’t hold a local passport, to still have access to local services.

Of course, starting next year, we’re going to change that. The number here is going to be changed. The AC something, something, it will be replaced by a 9 something, something. Basically, the numbers seven, eight and nine will be used in place of the letters C and so on, ...

Where they put in AC223 something, it will be rejected, saying, "It is not a valid National ID because the second digit is not a digit. It is a alphabet." Because of that, they’re denied access that by law and by regulation, actually, should be provided to permanent residents, but ...

They’re prevented, actually, access that shouldn’t be excluded, but are excluded because of code. If people go to order a movie ticket, or if they order some meals online, or maybe they buy a train ticket from the train station and use the Chinese, not the English interface of the ...

People of a foreign passport, even if they have permanent resident certificate, maybe, they have been like spending all their life in Taiwan, they have a something like AC23 something, something. They have a different class of an identification number.

I’ll say something about citizenry access. In Taiwan, many of us, I think most of us here have something what we call the National ID. Everyone has a National ID that maybe look like A, I don’t know, 2235 something, something, something.

Maybe, in this referenda outcome, which is binding, that we will have a separate legal code for so-called same-sex marriage. Maybe we can bring up those new ideas of pluralistic unions. What do you think about it?

These ideas were discarded during the referenda movement which focused on full marriage equality. Perhaps we should think more about companionship, thinking about a family consist of multiple partners and the other ideas.

It will, of course, provide the same level of protection except for the name. That was the outcome of the referenda. The question asks, in this moment of backlash, should we, perhaps, re-understand the idea of a post-house, post-family, post-marriage ideas?