All right, sounds fantastic. Thank you so much for making time. Let’s conclude here.

We’ve reached the end of my questions, unless there’s something else you feel I haven’t touched upon, and you really want to get off your chest?

Since this year, it’s new, right?

Just to round it off, I’m wondering, with the elections on the horizon next year, what would you say are some of the biggest challenges for you in facilitating digital politics and creating a participatory environment for democracy in Taiwan?

One last question, if I may.

I know we’re out of time.

In an environment that is governed by essentially still market dynamics, like you propose, can small, local social enterprises, can they win out against the big conglomerates that are so powerful in the market, especially when it comes to issues like providing convenience, which everyone craves, and once you have ...

And if not?

[laughs]

How do you feel about the way that interactions on Facebook work and shape politics in Taiwan or how interactions within Line communities work and shape politics in Taiwan? How can we -- I wouldn’t say oppose -- but at least counteract some of the negative outcomes of design choices ...

Another question about design. We have all these large platforms that are not open platforms like the ones that you’re working on: all the social media platforms, Facebook, Twitter, which make certain design choices, but these design choices are not democratically arrived at. They have certain consequences.

The kind of anarchists who are both skeptical of the state and its power, but they’re also skeptical of capitalism and the market, and yet your approach actually brings in market activism at the same time. How do you make that work?

Is there a tension between that vision, particularly one that’s open access, free software, and so on, and the market dynamics that you’re also utilizing to make that vision happen? Traditionally, there’s different streams of anarchism, off course. I’m thinking of Noam Chomsky, or I don’t know if you know ...

Since we’re on the topic of design choices, what would you say is your design philosophy for social software, for digital politics?

Is being part of a society of stakeholders for a citizen not also a whole lot more work? Do you see fatigue in people who cannot handle the information overload or opt out, simply because they feel "it’s too much for me, it’s overwhelming"?

What does that mean? What’s a conservative anarchist?

How do you reach groups that feel this way about ideas?

There’s also, you already mentioned exclusionary, tribal sentiments that might work against that. I can see another tension, which is, for lack of a better word, anti-intellectualism -- sort of a sense that the world is too complex, I’m not going to understand it, and I don’t trust people who ...

I can see certain components of what’s classically populist actually working really well for bottom-up democratic movements. It is populist, particularly this egalitarian idea, like ideas of being skeptical of power and of authority.

How do you interpret these processes, and what do you feel you can do to contribute to a conversation that brings them onboard into dialog?

In that context, as you’re traveling around, you’re seeing a lot of local places and local folk. What do you make of local populist movement? I’m thinking of Han Kuo-yu, of course, but there’s other areas where populists have been able to rile up often older folks, it seems.

My question is, are there people who are switched off from these processes because of their backgrounds, or because of the lack of time that they might have, and other issues? How do you do something about that?

Do you see areas where the technology you’re trying to deploy precisely for that might ironically get in the way because of digital divides, of different levels of skill and education.

Are you worried about maybe other areas where there might be bubbles of polarization that could be exploited or manipulated through the way that social media works, through power laws, or through people who intentionally influence public debate. Is there such a vulnerability?

Green and blue and all that. Independence, non-independence -- all these big issues. Would you say that in the last 5 years or 10 years or so, that you’ve seen an increase of polarization, or do you think that there’s more deference?

You mentioned polarization and binary thinking. Taiwanese politics has traditionally been fairly binary and polarized.

Do you think they are also using similar habits and techniques?

What you described so far are mostly progressive movements, activists, and so on. What do you make of, shall we call them, reactionary [laughs] social movements, like the kind of people who are anti-LGBT, or I don’t know where we place the pro-nuclear power lobby, for example, which are in ...

What would you say are the lessons that social movements and social activists have learned? So far, we’ve talked about the government side, about administration. What has changed -- has anything changed -- on the side of organizing activists against power, for example, or to promote particular kinds of issues?

Similarly, then, the DPP, also integrated many of these ideas, as you just described, directly into its governments and government processes.

I have the impression that the subsequent KMT administration learned some of these lessons from the Sunflower movement and just, you already have the vTaiwan initiative.

Are there other practices, mindsets, habits, institutions that you would point at and say, "Look, these are things that have come out of the 2014 events"?

Most of what you’ve already described, plus just your position in its own right, I would think, is a legacy already of the Sunflower movement.

Just to play devil’s advocate, if you are then editing information like this, where is the line between complete transparency and censorship? Where would you say one moves into the other?

De-contextualize it.

At the root, right? You’ve also made it clear that -- this is the quote -- "Transparency is good, to some degree," which is also why this interview, we’re going to each go over it and make sure that it represents what we wanted to say, if I understand correctly.

Right. But before we do that, I remember a quote from you which was about transparency. You call your position "radical transparency."

I’ll actually come back to exactly this in a moment, because I want to talk with you later on about design and design choices.

Is there a line you would draw, where you say, "Here’s a position, here’s a value set. I cannot deal with that. We’re not including it. It’s toxic. It’s hatred." Something where you draw the line, where you say, "This is not a legitimate part of the conversation"?

Just to get back to issues of bringing together these many different ideologies and different positions in society, you’ve made it clear on numerous occasions that you’re basically willing to bring everyone on board and make people talk to each other.

I can see the advantage of that, for both Jaclyn and yourself, would you say there’s also disadvantages of being that removed, or especially not having the portfolio, not having resources or power like another minister who is in charge of an entire ministry? Would you say that affects you?

That’s true. She’s your predecessor, in a way, right?

You’ve also mentioned earlier that g0v’s involvement during the Sunflower movement was to be neutral, to open up and report and help people understand. I know that after the movement, first, you helped the then-KMT government with its vTaiwan platform. You were involved as a consultant, I believe, right?

Since we’re on the topic of g0v, can you tell me a little bit more about that initiative, the network?

Now, of course, we don’t want to rehash all the different things you did at the time, but maybe you can just give me and the people who are reading this a brief impression of what your role was in 2014 and what followed afterwards, how you got involved in ...

You’re the perfect person to talk about that. You’re the cyber minister, and you were involved at that time as well.

Very nice. Basically, the topic for me -- for people who are not familiar with the brief but are reading this interview now -- is to figure out what the legacies of the Sunflower movement might be in Taiwanese politics, particularly in the realm of digital politics.

We’re already right on-topic.

Actually, I like that, and I think we’re going to get a chance to talk about open government and transparency in a moment.

Excellent.