 I'm going to do the YouTube thing, and there you go. Good to see you. Audrey, thank you so much for coming in speaking. Well, I came and I talked to you, didn't I? We're going to talk about that. You started off as a member of the Sunflower Revolution, kind of like this peaceful protest in Taiwan, that ended up kind of like pushing the current president into power, and then you ended up as a digital minister, which is pretty crazy. What are the differences between what your ideologies were when you were out of conventional power, and what is it like now, two years after becoming a minister? Well, it's a pretty grand old transition, because I started working as a kind of understudy during the ministering charge of digital affairs back in late 2014, around December of the Sunflower Occupy. So, I served two years maybe as a reposimental, as the then digital minister, Jacqueline Tsai, and I have trained classes and lectures to over 1,000 public service members in order to learn the art together of listening at scale. So, it's at this post that I worked for two years or so before becoming a digital minister for real for another two years' existence. So, I would say the basic values are always the same. We want to have reliable evidence, reliable fact, reliable data that our crowdsource, meaning that the citizens can also contribute, not just the government's data, and making sure that we can trust each other on the basic facts and evidences. And second, that we want to make sure that people know that it is only once per year that the government changes the direction and so on. And so, for emerging issues, social innovation is going to set a direction while the government may be followed on the next year. And so, there's a lot of things that doesn't have to wait for the government to do. That's the idea of forking the government to take in existing government services and making sure that people, when they say, oh, why doesn't anyone look at this? Why does nobody in the government look at this? The people in the society can't be done. Nobody at fork the existing government website and services and deliver it under the domain name G0PW, right? And so, that still has not changed. I still am participating in Cubs Zero, Hecosons, Meetups and things like that. And finally, is the idea of innovation. There's a lot of time where there's a civil society contribution or private sector contribution, where it's kind of meant to lock in. And so, for the government is either lock into that particularly, inventor or do it oneself, maybe in a lesser quality. But now, using the idea of innovation, actually all the projects in Cubs Zero are open servers and open licensed. And so, that means on the next procurement cycle, the government doesn't have to do a procurement by the existing vendor to just take the better quality ideas and products and so on and become part of the merged government services. And so, that logic still has not changed. And so, now I work, of course, on setting the procurement conditions and making sure that people do user-centric or pure-centric, as we say here, design up from and things like that. But still, there's a lot of business. Mm-hmm. How about you as a person? What is it like having this ideology that you've talked about, like learning from the society on the internet and kind of applying that to what you're doing here? How has that kind of changed your outlook now that you're able to not just critique and to, like, have a desire for what you want to have a democracy to look like? What is it like actually being able to do something? Well, no, I've never retiffed. I've built pilots, I've built prototypes, showing how better to do a certain thing. I never did a kind of just straight protesting the demonstration that I participated in on more like demonstrations, right, how to do things better. And it's really pushing the copyrights that the government can pick up on their own pace. Now, as the additional minister, I'm doing the same. It's just that I'm joined, fortunately, by a staff that consists at most one person per ministry. And so at most I can have maybe 34 staff at a moment, if you do. But it is very cross-functional, so that from each ministry there's at most one person joining the staff. But I'm not giving them orders. I'm not taking orders. They are very collaboratively set up. And so that's exactly the same as the best of your community, except that it's done now by the career public service as well as the civic actors. That's a really interesting part of kind of like your philosophy of doing things as well, this whole version two giving orders. That's right. What is your first of all your lack of enthusiasm to the given orders? Where does that come from? And then what does your way of kind of like, I'm not sure if you would call it leadership, but what does your leadership in this space look like if not all together? Well, that's the only political system that I knew when I was 14 years old and joined the early Wild Web, Internet Engineering Task Force and so on. Because on the Internet there really is no way to really give orders, right? And people don't have military power. There's no police. There's no way to punch another person across the screen. And so really the coercion-based command doesn't really work. So the Internet Society learned very early on that the really only useful governance system is built on radical transparency and also radical inclusion, meaning that anyone that has an email address has to say I'm the law of the Internet and how it works, right? And that's still true as of today. The Internet Society doesn't really report to any sovereign government or to the UN for that matter. And so that legitimacy is built not from the traditional maybes or armies or police but rather by rough consensus and running code, right? And so that really used that only because it's my new, before I got my first voting right, the representative democracy, which is where I was 20 years old. I had a president for six years. That's the native tribe that I worked with. And so by that time I think Taiwan just gets its first presidential election when there was 1996 or something. And so for us there's no like 200 years of legacy representative democracy. For us the Internet actually came first. And then democracy, right? So there's a lot of leeway in rethinking that democracy works based on those Internet governance principles. So I wouldn't call it a leadership but maybe it's just a adaptation of the collaborative governance into the politics. What do you think are the limitations of transferring like principles of Internet governance to traditional governance? Like what the IATF or like some of the kinds of institutions in that building. Like there is kind of this philosophy of if you are able then you can and should contribute. But actually it's a collaboration. But especially institutions like the IATF and they're having a huge amount of criticism because there is such a high level of, there's a high barrier to entry for being able to be included. How do you lower those barriers of entries in the governance here in Taiwan rather than having a similar popular internet? Well, it's because the Internet, as you said, is built out of thin air, from the thin air. It is very abstract and mathematical construction. But in real world politics often there is about maybe building a hospital or arranging some budgets, building a better experience system is the one. And so none of these are purely abstract. Many of this has a really large opportunity cost. That if we set out a certain course and we didn't consult a sufficient amount of stakeholders and then they discovered that it's really a bad idea and then we have to do everything on scratch. It's not like software where you can literally have a rough consensus. They have 10 things doing their own way and then try out things and see if it works. So we adapted in two ways. First we make the regulations and laws which are somewhat like code in that on the Internet governance there is no copyright in the IRC, it's all freely available and it's the same for regulations and code actually. All those law makers products there is no copyright attached to it. So we asked people to engage in this sandbox system called Sandbox of RGTW where they can fork a regulation or even a law and that says I have a local issue that's structural. It requires coordinate action and I have this idea that this is caused because the law is not caught up with times or the local municipal rule is out of date but instead of protesting on the street when we were with the municipality for example and say how about this travel year and to break the law, not really break forth the law but a regulation in hack the law and patch the law and for everybody to see for one year and then after that everybody concedes it's a good idea and then it's merged into the regulation so first we make the law amenable to the kind of fork and merge idea that the Internet governance is so important for the emphasis on and the second is that we make sure that everybody can be in their natural context because in a lot of cases where people report a regional issue you really have to step into their shoes which is why every other Tuesday or so I just tour around San Juan and visit indigenous places rural places and so on but it's not that me that travels with them but rather everybody the 12 ministries related to such innovation are here in such innovation lab and watching the natural habitat of the people as I tour around San Juan and they have to participate in it in a conferencing way and so in this way we just merge the distance between Taipei and the local vicinity they don't have to travel for four hours I have to deliver a 40-minute talk but rather I go there and I live for nine or so and I talk with other people on what exactly the social innovations or the regulations they're intending to break and things like that and so for all those personal ministry of issues these ministries are literally sitting next to each other so it's unlike the old bad way where the benefits have really been limited to compress everything into A4 papers it's now real people, real stories and if they request three ministries to work on a brainstorming solution where they have 14 days to do so because 14 days after each meeting we publish the whole transcript to the internet just like the internet society and so because it is the public studies people that are inventive gets all the credit previously they're anonymous and if there's any risk well I absorb the risk so it really flips the matrix of A for the social innovation within the public sector and so they're much more willing to innovate and solve a lot of long standing regulatory issues just because of that How much of your job is actually coaching the people of Taiwan how to engage with these kinds of systems and how much actual engagement do you get from people because there's kind of like this debate at the moment where I'm from and I'm still working on dialogue democracy in this way is actually very useful because the people cannot be trusted it's something that isn't spoken about often but it's something that is sometimes brought up that we have a representative democracy in the UK and therefore we should differ those big decisions to our representatives and recently you had the first round of referendum that you guys had here and they didn't necessarily go the way that many people expected or wanted them to How do you make sure that the public that are engaging with you are engaging kind of like in an appropriate way or in kind of like a new moment stand on the same kind of level as you guys Right, so first of all I'm not really saying that the regional innovation tour in the simple sense of one they're necessarily taking place instead of the representatives it's not nothing like that what we're doing essentially in design thinking and terminology is to discover and define a common social issue a common value out of different positions but the development deliver is more often than not still the parliament and the administrations business so we're not completely replacing the parliament people but the MPs actually cannot regulate on something they don't have to first experience about if we don't try for a year I mean, tricycles for everybody to have experience of how are they supposed to regulate anything about them I think people often forget this is that often MPs are voting on things that they also are not experts on I think there's perhaps a romantic idea of what a representative is meant to be like but at the end of the day they are also a person many MPs are very brilliant of course and they do have the team of specialists but the problem is that if you have only innovation and without a ground to prove it or a multisabot panel to establish its boundaries there really is nowhere for an MP to extrapolate it's from for example a lab setting to a real world setting so what we're doing essentially is bringing the citizens into the discover and define phase of for example through e-peditions through the regional tours through the sandbox system experience of how people feel like when there's innovation on the way and then after a year of close preservation and data sharing and maybe like the zero even prototyping is done then MPs can talk much more substantially about how to regulate it from the long term perspective and so I would say we compliment but doesn't reinforce the representative democracy system and it is through this that for example e-pedition and the participation system joined the GOE that TW has maybe 5 million users out of 23 million inside one which is about one quarter of people on the internet which is pretty good actually and that's because people can participate in the full cycle it's not just e-pedition but actually regulatory pre-announcements the visualization of the budgets and people can actually comment on each and every budget of the annual budgets of each projects by each ministry and when people comment publicly the public service actually replies publicly and so that lowers the contextual mismatch between the public service on one hand and the public services on the other and all this is actually saving the MPs a lot of work we're not taking away MPs' job we're saying that we don't have to explain to their constituents over the end of what the administration is doing because everything is actually online we're not taking away the value it's not the facts because the facts are easily accessible what does this engagement look like who are engaging do they tend to be younger, older do they tend to be from indigenous communities or from communities early do you have that information on what we actually do the interesting thing in Taiwan is that broadband is a human right so anywhere in Taiwan that's why I can travel around Taiwan to all those indigenous rural places while keeping a good video by directional link with people on social innovation and so because of this we're not actually seeing a lot of digital gaps people who participate we're seeing of course the younger people, the students as well as the retired people they spend more time on the platform because they will have more time on the platform I would agree that if you're a for example a someone with a resident certificate by building a foreign passport if your primary language is not Taiwanese hapa, Taiwanese holo or Mandarin then a lot of participation you're going to rely on Google Translate and that's not exactly 100% accurate and so at the moment we're breaking a new national goal of at least having the government official websites to the bilingual that is to say Chinese and English I think by next year or so about 70% of the public administration will offer English based information and we would gradually roll out this bilingual strategy so that people who don't read kanji can super this being a meaningful way with our relying completely on machine translation at the moment I think the language gap is the largest gap so you're saying that the biggest gap is with people with foreign passports to have a primary residency here because there's really can you just put your ear there's really a lot of really discrepancies because for example for some very small websites there's spying more versions but the English version is out of date that is one thing that we're actively looking to solve sometime when you Google for example the AI Taiwan strategy now it's easy because you just get one website ai.tai1.gov.tw but previously it's like four different ministries, two of which are English and there really is very difficult for a non-Chinese speaker to put everything together but now we're switching to this single entry point way of presenting the vision section of the news throughout the different municipalities and ministries in a single version so you can have ai.tai1 c ai.tai1 for collective intelligence smart power, bible.tai1 social innovation, s.tai.tai1 and so on and so yeah that's the rule that we're gradually going to is not to require everybody to navigate maze and parallelist English websites but rather to merge things into a English friendly and that's really the number one thing we're looking at now Out of Taiwanese nationals who is kind of left behind with this digital innovation so can you just put a second on it yes so I think so for example when we look at like government digitalization of government services there are lots of stories especially I think of my own country because that's funny that's my reference point a lot of people who are not necessarily new to little who do not have as much access to broadband services which is obviously different in tai1 but you end up seeing a system that works incredibly well and much better for the majority but there's a minority who are kind of left behind who gets left behind and I don't know how much you want to divulge that well a few things friend not only Robin as a human right but actually access to tablets and so on is actually something that we make sure in the education system even the people who cannot afford it actually are guaranteed to have access to it and so on so the digital opportunity centres the tribal opportunity centres and things like that so when we're designing the government digital services we ensure that the digital is actually in service of the people's needs and that we have multiple service channels and making sure that the resources required for the service is equally giving priorities to openness and the priority to openness is very important because exactly as you said if you are a certain learning difficulty or modality of learning and things like that then the space need to be constructed with people's need in mind for example the visual design, the geometry here is such an innovation that are designed by people with Down syndrome see the world in a very geometric way and through so many conditions it enables them to interpret things differently and so to make sure that our services are friendly to people with Down syndrome people with various different physical and mental abilities and things like that that is only possible if we design services so that it is extensible right like a text file system or a digital service of course we can't cater to every people with every different special modalities but if we keep the API open then people who specialize with working with these people like the Children and Arts Foundation who specialize with working with people with Down syndrome they can contract their own for example chat box designer or I don't know immersive reality designer or whatever designers to re-deliver the government service which we say you know if you are accessible to blind people it is a kind of blind people so you have to be machine readable and readable as well and if people who are procuring they find that their vendors cannot deliver a machine readable API interface then the vendor can actually be disqualified for unprofessionalism and so just by making sure that machines are also people and for accessibility we make sure that people who work those people who you said would be blind has a fair chance of adapting it into a pre-all displays or whatever modalities so is that kind of like centrally decided in terms of where those resources end up going? because it sounds like you have a lot of freedom here in order to be able to kind of encourage that engagement with digital governance but at what point does the financing become an issue how do you pay for all of this amazing stuff that you are doing? well social enterprises of course Taiwan actually has a very strong social enterprise tradition so much so that I think the legitimacy of the largest social enterprises such as the Homemakers Union the Tujaranaz or the Siji Foundation are higher actually than governments in many circumstances and that's because they have a head start as I said our first presidential election is 1996 but the lifting of the martial law is 87 and so there's a decade of the government's role in transitioning into a democracy but the civil society and the social sector is already growing and gaining legitimacy so the end result is that they are actually financially self sufficient and that's an understanding and also that they are able to independently fund a lot of these as I said accessibility and inclusion engagement the end of us as long as the government agrees to work as a partner instead of treating them as vendors because they have higher legitimacy they demand a punishment equal treatment rather than a vendor-like relationship with the government so on every case where we offer an open co-design opportunity like the design of this very social innovation lab we do have a lot of contributors from hundreds of social enterprises and social innovation groups co-ops and foundations companies and so on and what I love most is that they are not for profit they are with profit meaning that they are profitable but profit is not their purpose and so we are now just working with them and not for them and that is I think the most important thing about this kind of collaborative government is that we are not working for these people these are not vulnerable people they are actually people with higher legitimacy at times for many accessibility inclusion areas I want to put a little bit to kind of like this idea of consensus quality because this is something that you talked about a lot it was in time when kind of like a normal speech because it doesn't have a rough consensus rough consensus this kind of like it's an honourable it's an honourable goal to accept this polarity of views and see kind of like I think we will agree and then decide on where you are going to go from there is that because we see the opposite happening in Western democracies at the moment like Paris is literally burning and the UK is like splitting itself into I don't know I've got a spade starting digging what do you think the home kind of like the idea of Western democracy what do you think you could possibly learn from what you guys are doing when that moment we build a space where people can safely express their feelings in an additive space meaning that they can only outdo each other without taking away from each other's vulnerability we always see a distribution like this so I'm not pretending that the divisive ideologies and statements are not there but they are just that people actually agree on a lot of things with their neighbors and that's what the rough in rough consensus means and we say we roughly agree on a few things and these things they can just take place immediately and why are we working on more divisive issues and so this is not pretending that divisive issues doesn't exist it's not letting them dominate our attention in the news cycle it's by focusing on the things that we can actually agree on and then depending on the agreement people can share their reflections and so on and so I think this is not a commentary on replacing the democratic institutions but rather letting people see the overview effect of the internal democratic institutions like having a reflective space that reflects the entire relations feelings rather than just the five divisive ideologies what happens when people capitalise on that long tail of the especially divisive things that often talk about alienating the other and politically kind of like you don't call it fake news what have I seen this before? it automates a dissemination of this information I think I've heard you used how do you these bad actors how do you ensure that these bad actors don't throw the whole system like off completely destroy it yeah I mean a similar challenge back in 32,000 about jump mail spam I think that's the common language and for a while people have thought the email is broken and we're going to abandon these ideas sending email without a postage fee just people really seriously producing failure design and people are overwhelmed with emails from Nigerian princesses or whatever I'm already a multi-billionaire actually I've gotten myself a Nigerian for this that's awesome I'm just waiting for the check that's right so with a lot of respect between Nigeria I'm sorry for using that example but in any case really this ban issue is solved not by law really there is some law of course about when click unsubscribe email but by and large is my volunteers who flag jump mail and coordinated technical solutions like the slumhouse which is a kind of global transparency now that identifies the signatures of jump mail and making sure that they work with all the mail service providers to make sure that emails are receiving those messages or those signals they don't get provided so that now you have to actually click into the spam folder to see those jumping emails so they don't dominate people's attention and so on so it's not by any single actor but every actor makes it more costly to send spam maybe you need to get a digital signature and things like that and on the other hand the return of spam is decreased by every single action of lowering people's attention priority and at some point it doesn't pay to send spam anymore as we will switch to some other way of coming people but what I'm saying basically it's really a multi-stake order thing which is now why we're working with zero project for example the COFAC project which lets you in WhatsApp or when you see a disinformation that's being spread you can flag it and you post it to the public web so it's like a clearing house on all the trendy disinformation you can see actually on one bill we saw this with the reference there was a lot of disinformation being spread and these closed networks this got flagged publicly and there was a lot of conversation about how to make that better but at the end of the day there were still people being misinformed buying that information and didn't necessarily end up seeing it because COFAC which is great to line bot only delivers the last mile to line and maybe it's getting ported to WhatsApp and other enduring encrypted channels but it doesn't go all the way to for example the printed small cards that people hand out so for every last mile delivery you need a people working on that last mile delivery so that people when they encounter disinformation they can receive the corrected information in the same channel that they're engaging in and the government of course is committed to have a way for people to flag these issues that requires government clarification and clarify it within four hours so that everybody has a fact or at least evidence from the government's perspective to add to and the Taiwan Fact Checking Centre for example the TFCC recently joined the International Fact Checking Network which means that by early next year they're out with where they fact check a training rumor sometimes actually serves as front post acts they actually get plugged into the algorithm of the popular social media channels and so that they can actually input into the virality of the message so that the mayor of the things that they clarify already is false for example referring them takes higher place than constitution can actually dwindle in the people that they reach and so this takes both a textual normativity meaning the law need to be more specific about disinformation but also the algorithm need to be more aware about disinformation so that it takes all that and just like jumping may I think we took four years to solve that problem there's one day it's going to take a similar amount of time Do you think that the referendum results not just around the LGBT education and Saint-Examabic but the white ones about like the name the Taiwan Music Times like the Olympics has done do you think that the results here are less kind of like kind of represent quite well the fact that it still needs time for this system that is being built around kind of like this more direct democracy needs more time in order to be able in order for it to actually be useful and to work efficiently I think well it needs more time and more efficiently I think the lining up needs to be more efficient I'm sure we both took very long lines to vote those referendum votes and that's I think the number one thing in improving the service design perspective of course we can increase people's happiness instead of waiting for like two or three hours and that's going to happen real quick on the next election on the other hand of course the decision period before the referendum this system I think is really shortened because it has to go with the major election now you didn't see many issues or debates and stuff and then even in the law mandated debates the CEC can only make sure that every side of the protocol is equal number of seconds but that's the only thing that they guarantee there's no substantial deliberation and there's no time for substantial deliberation actually so one thing we learned is that we need to shorten the time that people line up to actually vote a referendum but we need to lend them the time that people take to actually get a quality conversation around the actually effect of the referendum because I think a lot of people are actually going to the referendum and afterwards they have different ideas about what this actually means what does it actually mean to bind the legislation and the administration for two years on a particular direction, some people have different interpretations of what a referendum actually means and those are very clearly by law so I don't think it's the people's problem because we can't expect everybody to be a constitutional lawyer that we have a more substantial deliberation here before the referendum and I think a lot of people would be a lot more clear about what exactly is your referendum or do you think it would have changed the results of it further? I don't know We'll see next time Do you think what you're building here has sustainability in terms of the way that the legislation of your own actually works or is this a part of that thing that you're building here? If having forbid the DPP were not to get a majority of the presidency in 2020 is it possible that what you're building could be scaled back or damaged in any way? How are you building a legacy? Well the different legislation system actually the entire system was built around premium multiple and premium semi-john so semi-john is not exactly the same but in any case it was under the mind of your administration and so I think when people are used to it it's very difficult to go back and at the end of 2014 we see that anyone who advocates for greater transparency automatically gets more votes and at this time actually even for people who are KMT or NBP or DPP nobody really proposed anything that rose back existing transparency and participation efforts in the city level or municipal level I think it's a very encouraging sign because that means that people think it's a natural part of democracy so people don't have to specifically shelter from it but nobody wants to grow it back that is already participating budgeting or there's already ways to do high voting and so on we see after the election no matter what the party is we are more interested in the name of so-called regional revitalisation meaning that places in townships with 50K or 100K people actually get to participate more and local rulemaking as I share the original innovation and again that is embraced across the parties and so I don't think any of this are against any party ideology that is why we always say open government are working actually on the 16th of the sustainable goals and piggybacking on the sustainable goals not only make it very clear that it is something that is cross-partisan but it actually the entire humanity has agreed on all the countries in the world have adopted the sustainable goals and saying that by 2030 we need to have a transparent institution we need to protect fundamental platformers we need to have effective accountability in jade and things like that as part of the SDGs I think really says that it is not only a government's business that really is a takes effective partnership across the board so not only the government need to be more a participator but as I said that social enterprises, the co-ops the other different organisations in the society are also lending from each other in this kind of participatory decision making and that really is what makes it impossible for any party to go back I've heard that when I was researching you I heard that you were very you've said I'm an optimist and I wasn't sure if I believed you but I mean you very clearly are but how do you maintain optimism when I feel like now democracy as a concept is being challenged and pushed more than it has possibly about a hundred years maybe not quite that but how do you maintain any kind of optimism please help me well I mean how democracy is really new to this one first generation that can actually do democracy right it's been around for only 30 years so of course we're finding all this very curious and interesting and lots of experimentation is taking place because there's no good old way because of the dictatorship right and so I think of course in the early stages when it comes to making democracy work but actually the lack of legacy can actually enable more optimism because as you said it's being challenged but actually so is lifting of the martial law so is fighting for freedom of speech and assembly so is fighting during the martial law for human rights and these are actually much more violent and much more difficult than the struggles that we're facing now we're actually sitting in a pretty beautiful place to do this kind of work while our parents' generation our grandparents' generation really paid the early form for freedom and so because of this I think we're still in the kind of the first generation face where we think everything is possible and I think that's the root of optimism is not my personal history is everybody in San Juan How can we transfer that optimism to places that do have a number of degrees of democracy and a kind of seeing their envelope's there push Yeah I'm not definitely not suggesting that you occupy your opponents I'm not suggesting that to you guys I'm not suggesting that Actually when I shared my thoughts in France, in Epilep and they had a conversation with the local civil society and so on and right after I fly I have to a Taiwan that new people would happen I'm not speaking any words there's constant references but actually at a local level I think it's easier in the UK for example when I visited Edinburgh they have a long tradition of the social enterprises taking care of everything and actually the Highland and Highland Development Agency is a very good example of collaborative governance by the people in a call-up-ish way and all these are very good local examples you don't have to look far away there are pockets that's in the UK that are kind of self-running with the CICs or whatever other structures you have I think what is needed is to make it a new paradigm a new imagination of people seeing these not just working with vulnerable people or working with rough sleepers it's not just about particular sustainable goals but these kind of innovation taken together is actually a valuable and valuable governance model I think that is the key issue that people need to just change their imagination around I think all the raw materials are already in the UK I want to ask you where your anarchism is do you usually hear, I don't know so who is conservative what does your anarchism look like how does it pertain to what we do day to day well like any anarchist or Taoist it's all about not taking and giving orders and the reason why this radical horizontalism is needed is because really people who have different positions they all have a lot to contribute as the sustainable goals obviously say but as soon as I give orders people will start thinking about the difference between the economic the social, the environmental the whatever values but because I'm an administrator that's entirely horizontal my office is composed literally of different administrative people who all have different values the channeling web that I do is just to make sure that people can agree on common values despite their surface differences and if I start giving orders this kind of facilitative power I insist on being a purely facilitative minister while considering the various traditions including the indigenous traditions the Hakka and Holo the new migrant traditions including of course our new people from the so-called greater East Asia and also other people with ARCs and so on and so all these are important coaches is a kind of stage of and the more that we can include different voices in the plurality the less we need to give orders in the first place because then people can start thinking that maybe they're not here to take away jobs or things like that but actually can co-create something that is impossible when you're just starting from your own population This is probably not the most efficient way of me getting this answer but the media coverage of you is immensely positive I mean we love you fantastic but far and media coverage of you is intensely positive what am I missing by not reading Tony's account of you like are there any domestic critiques well I think number one domestic critique at the moment when you google from my Mandarin Chinese is that sometimes my name is used as a verb and what does that mean so to something is to lower its virality in dissemination that's because I talk very frankly about fact checking about how fact checking the town fact checking center very soon would plug into the algorithm of facebook and other large platforms and so that the virality will actually window when something is fact checked or something is laid out and so people would have because I have a uncanny breast of the algorithm they somehow mistake this understanding with control as if I can actually hack into the facebook systems and then change their hyperparameters we don't even confirm or deny change no I deny very very quickly because really I don't have any access to facebook or google plus just to make it just to make it abundantly clear I know that you mentioned google plus as well but you are closing it now I know before the great name was google plus then I will list the name was yes but what I mean basically is that the fact that I know about algorithmic governance or code based normativity sometimes lets people mistake that I can control it but that's not actually true but on the other hand I'm happy that people are using my name as a verb giving me a google like status as a verb to remind each other the importance of the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression because really if you look around the world Taiwan in our region at least is the only fully free place and there is no other place at least in this region that is having expanding civil society space in terms of speech and assembly and so on and so I think we need to as an example to a region that having absolute speech freedom plus a good social innovation system is actually good for democracy it's not actually detrimental to democracy and also looking you score better than the UK and France and Spain so I'm actually making this look bad but we're on a par with Ireland and Canada and then New Zealand and then New Zealand but I'm not saying that we're actually doing better than everybody in the world in this region but you are right so I think we need to keep this as a core value rather than an instrumental value and I'm happy for my name to be using this way to keep reminding people that even with all these algorithmic ideas of virality, fact checking and so on still we're not taking away people's speech freedom we're not censoring people you have to go, thank you so much oh you're such a