The initial statement: “We don’t argue with criminals” which initially had 70% agreement eventually got less and less support. By the third week most people - over 65% - still thought they are criminals but we should still sit down and talk with them. By the end of the polling period most people think: “Okay, let’s talk with them anyway.” So by the fourth week and this is why we need four weeks because experience tells us on the fourth week people finally agree on something that’s actionable. Before that it is just random reflections or general observations. After trying to convince each other so hard because the system only shows the things with the highest score people started to come up with very nice ideas, actually policy ideas like that: “You should be fair to both Uber and non-Uber drivers” or like: “The taxation is very important. Uber must register, their registration must display prominently on their window, or in their cars” or “This is not just a commerce because like medicine and food this is matter of public safety and if people want to avoid tax, if you really want ride sharing you should insure the people. If you go to work and go back to work they should only ride two times. That is okay to evade tax like that. But if you take more than two routes then of course you are actually making a living out of it and you’re a business person.” So that’s one policy suggestion. And: “The taxi driver should be allowed to join multiple platforms, even existing taxi drivers.” These are the suggestions that had over 80% consensus which is our cut-off point and that became the agenda of our deliberation.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech