 Definitely. So my first political system that I run into is the Internet Society itself, namely, you know, C-Pen, IETF, the stuff. And these were in 96, so I was 15 years old, and I dropped out of Middle High because I want to participate full time in that ecosystem, also includes Internet Archive and ARXIV, the Cornell thing, Gutenberg Project and things like that. And for me, that's my native political system. And when I get my first vote, when I was 20 years old, which is just, you know, five years down the line, it's so ingrained in me that it seems quite literally true that I can actually take whatever I learned when I was 15 years old and bring it into the day-to-day political system. I think this is very fortunate because in time when our first presidential election was in 1996, and so for us Internet democracy, not two things, it's the same thing. It's intertwined. It's literally the same year I participated in the first presidential election campaign using the Huawei technology. Of course, the candidate I supported lost. But anyway, that's lessons learned. Yeah, it used to be that in the 80s when I was young, we relied on the journalist, international ones, and also Hong Kongese to report what's actually happening in Taiwan so that the international, like MST, international and so on, could support the human rights movement in Taiwan. And so I do feel that the role is somewhat reversed that we're now providing a safe harbor, hosting the Oslo Freedom Forum, the Open Tech Fund stuff, also, of course, the reporters on Swantia and things like that, and also through our exchange programs with Hong Kongese students. They're also given a neutral platform around which they can voice to the international community without fearing persecution or persecution. You mean what? No, no, not at all. Not at all surprised. So I was, of course, part of the 2014 Occupy Movement in Taiwan, the sunflower movement, and later that year, many of our techniques get exported into the Hong Kong umbrella movement. And since then, it's quite clear that they're operating with a, I would say, adversarial but less than sympathetic communication infrastructure as compared to Taiwan where the leading telecom provider actually volunteered to speed up the internet connection broadband to the supported Occupy Movement. You can't probably find that in Hong Kong. And so it's a fundamentally different configuration, but I wasn't surprised by the later movements, the bee water stuff and so on. That's the Shiba Inu. Where a mask to protect yourself from your own wash hand? Instant hit. Physical distancing. There's a couple lessons. One is that when we mean humor, we really mean something that's funny, that appeals across all age groups and political inclinations. So cute dog, of course. Good cats, too. And I myself get dressed up as Doraemon, the robot cat, the Japanese anime stuff. And these things, they offend no one. So all the outrage that could have been channeled to revenge or discrimination gets channeled almost 100% into joy, laughter, humor and positive stuff. But if you make fun with audio respect, the onion style, then that's actually early channel's part of the energy and actually radicalizes, polarizes the other parts that didn't get channeled. So to be maximally inclusive, even childish at times, that really helps. The Japanese have a great term for that. It's moe. The more moe you are, the better you are. That's the first thing. And the second thing is the time really met us. If people see that this information gets infected with the infodamic and before they go to sleep didn't see our clarification messages. It forms a long-term association that's very hard to counter with humor and could only be countered by inviting the people who descend into co-creation workshops, that is to say, deliberative democracy. I think trust and truths are not very useful abstractions. I don't use those abstractions in my head. I use the abstraction of trustworthiness. And that's a very different thing from trust. And this has an epistemic impact as well. So trustworthiness or in a very kind of relational kind of sense is the idea that instead of getting the trust placed on any particular institution or even any particular person, the trust is placed instead on a process that is aligned accountable. It may fail, of course, but amidst the failure in accountable fashion and fixed alignments by showing competence and things like that. And so the trustworthiness toward this epistemic input is relational in the center around one particular behavior pattern. And so through the daily live stream, the Central Epidemic Monsanto live stream and the Hotline 192 and so on, we earn trustworthiness with pharmacists and so on with civil technologists. This particular matter of, for example, mass distribution or the cute dogs, you know, physical distancing, but it doesn't translate automatically to other policy domains even if it's the same person, even if it's the same minister of health because on those policy domains, we did not establish the same epistemic mechanism. And so the point is that instead of placing trust of truth or whatever to any particular institution, we need to make sure that we democratize fact-seeking or fact-finding, which is, well, let's just call it journalism. And then when we democratize journalism, just as in last year, in our curriculum, we didn't say media literacy anymore. We stopped saying that. We say media competence. Understanding that the primary schoolers, most of them actually are producers of media in town, urban, human rights, right? No marginal costs in uploading gigabytes of YouTube videos or Instagram videos. And so because of that, then each of those primary school students, if they participate in the fact-checking endeavor, that fact-checks all the different sentences that the presidential candidate said during their platform and their debates and so on, they become closer to the mechanism, the journalism mechanism that establishes the facts without placing any undue trust on any particular institution, be it the public sector, the private sector, or any particular institutional media. Well, I don't know. I mean, I've met one of the architect of the Google Duo chat tool. I don't think Google Duo is part of Jigsaw, but it serves pretty much that role in the use case you just described, which is pretty good end-to-end encryption without any application installed using just the off-the-shelf web browser, right? We use insertable streams in WebRTC to ensure that there's true end-to-end encryption in groups up to, I think, 32 people. And that is very useful. We're now using Google Meet because we all reasonably trust each other, we'll not interfere with the communication. And also because the jurisdiction you're in and the jurisdiction I'm in are in kind of a value-aligned fashion. That can't be said to other places in the world, in which case Google Meet may be interfered, but Google Duo, the most they can do is just to stop its connection. I've heard that maybe they're going to meet together into Google Duet or something, and then we'll have end-to-end encryption by default on Google Meet, which would be great. That's actually the same kind of pressure that we gave four years ago when the year that I become Digital Mensa, at the time there's a popular chat tool called Line, still quite popular, around this corner of the world, and they offer end-to-end encryption only for individual to individual, but in group chat it's not encrypted, it's like a telegram group. And so that actually has negative repercussions. And we basically said until such a day that you make the group chat end-to-end encrypted across all the different members in the group, we were not actually will recommend against the public servants using that tool even for public communication purposes. And so around I think the turn of that year in early 2017, they changed the group chat to be entirely end-to-end encrypted other than stickers because they sell the stickers, another story. But anyway, after that then we say, yeah, it's fine, it's fine. We can use it for public communication, and we're now applying the same pressure for other video conferencing software companies. And so something as simple as that, making a new norm, really did the old norm, but remaking the old norm of end-to-end innovation and end-to-end encryption. I think that is one of the main things that a large company such as you can make. And there's also the chat room, there's also the chat room. So like there's a question and there's an answer already in chat room, so we have a side channel. Yes, yeah, move fast and break the news. I think that's the tagline. Well, not quite, but yes. Yeah, I think it's practically of course very useful and the kind of infrastructure that you build essentially makes shadow socks less vulnerable or more resilient. And I think it's generally saying a good thing. And from what I can see on the development is not just open source, it's actually quite openly developed and openly governed, which is a pretty good thing. So congrats, good work. Well, cheaper smartphones, that's a really good start, right? This is the smartphone that I use, pretty smart. Runs YouTube, so it's a smartphone. But also KaiOS, which used to be Boutu Gecko, which I personally contributed. And open source, of course, and really, really cheap. And because of the KaiOS, this is I think a Nokia thing. I'm quite happy actually with this phone because it doesn't have a touch screen. I can't build addiction, but it runs all the web apps that I developed just fine because it's HTML5 and all that. And I think more phones like this would be a really good start. And also I think, yeah, the digital literacy slash competence thing. I think people tend to think more about literacy when the internet communication they have is asymmetrical in the sense that there's maybe a high speed download link or maybe download link from some particular websites. I would not go there. And then the upload link is quite constrained and limited or costs a lot, in which case it's just a reconfigured radio or television. And then, of course, you think about literacy. But in Taiwan, what we make sure is that even in the very early days of the like toll free number days, we make sure that there's like public telephone booths. That was when I was really young in the 80s or before the 80s, even in what we call the under resourced places that makes no economic sense to install those public library access to telecommunication infrastructure. And so that's because in Taiwan we have a weird constitution that initially not designed for Taiwan, that basically spelled out that for the rights of communication, the rights of education, and the rights of health, these three rights makes Taiwan a social democracy on these domains. It's only in every other domain that we're a liberal democracy. When you swipe your national health insurance card, a single payer card, that's essentially socialism. But if you swipe your credit card, that's capitalism. So what I'm trying to get at is that if you design the policies in such a way, for example, through creative auction methods, that we get all our 5G operators to basically chip in a lot of extra money and then say in the places that enjoy the least connection in 4G, we set up the 5G experiments, those millimeter waves, Sandbox and so on, in these places first. Not only do it attract the startups to that particular place, but also it makes a social impact long before we figure out a business model. And that is the way it should be in a social democracy for those fundamental rights. And in that sense, we will switch to a media competence instead of a media literacy perspective. And it doesn't really require starlings or whatever, balloons at the moment. You can set up something like that using something as simple as toll-free numbers and daily press conferences. In Taiwan, we counter the pandemic with no lockdown, particularly because of those, like, livestream on television, teleconferences with the quint, the medical officers. And this simple number, of course there's chatbots and websites and so on, but it's just a simple toll-free number that anyone can dial in with a landline, even a young boy who said, you're rationing out pink medical mask. I don't want to wear pink medical mask to school. And then the very next day, everybody wore pink medical mask. And so the boy has the color that the heroes wear. And it really made a kind of fashion industry out of medical masks. And so the whole point of this is that people feel empowered just picking up a phone, dialing the toll-free number, understanding there's more than 95% chance it would get picked up immediately. They can ask for your heart's content. And anything that a call center people cannot answer because it's generally a new idea gets escalated to the daily conference just a day afterwards, or like my open office hours, which is every Wednesday. And so I can go on. But the point is not high-end technology. The point is fast, iterative, co-creation mechanisms. Okay. First of all, I mentioned the Wednesday meetings in my office. This is literally my office. It's a park. We tore down the walls. Anyone can walk in and get inspired by the public art as drawn by people with Down syndrome. Very creative. And they get inspired to do crazy things like this pirate, sorry, mayor Stanley Kvib of Prague City. The small cabinet just gets so inspired that they start climbing on the structure, which was not designed for climbing, by the way. I'm happy that none of them fell down. Otherwise, it's a faux pas diplomatically. And in any case, what I'm trying to get at is that in such an open, safe, recorded space, people do behave differently. And that's exactly the case back in 2014 in the sunflower movement. Instead of the government top-down sign, we're doing 4G development. We should use PRC components as peoples of Republic of China region. PRC components, or we shouldn't, or things like that, is that people going to the street have a million people on the street, many more online. And in the same kind of safe spaces that I just show you, basically deliberating all the 20 different aspects of the CSSTA, the cross-strait service and trade agreements. And because the MPs were refusing to do that, it gave an opening of legitimacy's theory that we just occupy the place MPs work to do the MPs job for them, because we elected them to do the work. They were on strike. OK, we'll just go in and do it ourselves. And so because of that, the rough consensus on the street has been very clear. There is no pure play private sector company in a PRC period. Every time they want, they can plug and play leadership. Leadership in the private companies through their party branches or whatever. And basically every time we adopt PRC component, or then new 4G infrastructure, we'll have to commit to do another systemic risk assessment any time an update is done. And because this rough consensus is formed on the street and has brought appeal to pretty much all the 20 NGOs co-creating the sunflower movements deliberative scene, when the National Security Council International Communication Commission adopted it later that year in 2014 and say, OK, from that point on, we're not going to allow any PRC company in our telecommunication infrastructure. And for the next couple years, we will remove what were there in our 3G or whatever infrastructures. It's not controversial at all. We had that conversation, this whole of society debate on the street already during the sunflower movement. And so it's a non-issue for us, because since 2015 or something, we've had no PRC components in our telecommunication infrastructure that's soft in the 4G era. And so when 5G comes, all of our five major telecom operators, of course, qualify as clean paths in a clean network. But that's not because that stay gets a addict from the National Communication Commission or something like that. It's because people understood the issues, assessed the risk, did a large deliberation, which I would really help other countries to consider doing that. Yeah. And actually, this coincides with the question in the chat that says, in what ways do I work to defend Taiwan as its own country? I don't work for the Taiwan government. I work with the Taiwan government. I don't work for the Taiwanese people. I work with the Taiwanese people, a very different perspective, because I'm slashing, you see, while serving as digital minister, and I usually use the lowercase minister, which means I preach about things. So the lowercase digital minister in Taiwan, a poetician, I also, like, work with Vitaly Buterin Glenweil and Daniel Allen and folks in New York City in the Radical Exchange Foundation. I'm also their board member. I'm also a board member of Digital Future Society. That's the Barcelona Mobile World Capital thing. And I'm also a board member in the Council Democracy Foundation, which started from the 15M in Madrid, and then later on they moved to Amsterdam and doing the Council thing, which includes participatory budgeting and deliberative democracy and all that. And so by serving, like, just, I don't know, this worldwide, I want to say global, but that has a different connotation, worldwide collision of open technologists working on democracy as a technology. I see the Taiwanese population more as the kind of people that embraces, like early adopters, of democracy as a technology point of view. But actually the parts we cobbled together from all over the world, the e-petition system, more than half of our population in Taiwan, used the e-petition system, visited at least. That's actually a straight adaptation from Beter De Kavic from Iceland. Our participatory budgeting portal probably inspired heavily by Council, by the Madrid people. The Polish system, which is now its own second level domain, like literally Polish, the GOV, the TW, where we use it to debate and delivery slash ocean that are open to ocean policy or mountaineering policy or even diplomatic policies, or the coronavirus hackathon with the US and other countries and so on. And this system, the Polish system, started in Seattle in its open source. And so the whole point I'm trying to make is that this is not about making something work for Taiwan and then somehow scale it out. Not that kind of thing. It's just internet governance norms already proven and quite resilient actually as the internet norm package and how do we project in a kind of holographic fashion to the day-to-day policy making, re-express it in the language of the career bureaucracy. And in that we have many, many allies, the policy lab in the UK, the GOV lab in the US, many, many allies. And I would consider actually JIXL as a LI2 because you work on the underlying infrastructure that enable this kind of safe and free communication to happen because without which there's no deliberative democracy because anyone can impersonate each other if you given the right root keys. Yeah, so first of all I guess more emoji, right? So our president, Dr. Tsai Ing-wen, used a rainbow emoji and there's the transgender flag emoji I think it's also a Google thing that's proposed to the Unicode Consortium. There's the emoji restructuring that made all the default emojis instead of looking slightly boyish, just looks post-gender and you have to add modifiers if you want to make it look more boyish which is great and I can go on but there's a lot of things that the internet companies can do in order to shape the norms things as simple as putting the wearing a mask emoji instead of like looking I'm so sick I'm wearing a mask, like looking cheerful when I'm wearing a mask, it's the same emoji I think Apple just changed that particular emoji to look more cheerful than sick the mask wearing person emoji and so those are small wins but if you do enough of those small wins it changes the online discourse, it changes the norm things as simple as putting all the reply buttons in a less visible places that also change the norm making sure that in your reply input box having a square corner make it very rounded corners that also improves things I'm not talking about a very heavy handed emoji like a speech balloon with an eye emoji that I'm seeing you bullying people people don't use that a lot actually and it's quite top-down but of course it's a valuable conversation to have what I'm trying to say is that just to make the norm making sure that when people they use the social media and so on it takes them a lot of extra effort to bully a lot of extra effort to discriminate and this is actually the way I use the term radical when it's a radical transparency I don't mean that I force you guys to publish your transcript if you want to of course that's great but it means that by default I record everything that I said the intention of publishing it and if I want to go back and correct the typo I can of course do that but it takes me extra effort so open by default and so inclusivity by default that is something that all the user designers can think about and then the user experience design can turn into human experience design that is to say care about the impact that your design has even when the human being is not a user of your product or processes think about how much they can convey this message that you learn from your design experience to other people to increase the R value because if we tell the story of wear a mask to protect you against your own unwashed hand it's very easy to remind each other this if you say wear a mask to protect it elderly to respect each other that message actually doesn't travel very far it's not an idea that's it's worth spreading but it's not an idea that's spread and so just design the experience so that the tolerating message the inclusive message my identification as homo sapiens sapiens and so on and that's all very easy to copy very easy to adapt and so think about those in the design human experiences mm-hmm oh yeah mm-hmm yeah well Dao De Jin to me is poetry it's one of the first poetry that I read I read as a child as a child with a heart disease that's corrected by a surgeon who was 12 but before which I can't go outdoor or hike or really run or really get upset very much and so Dao De Jin is the kind of poetry that I don't need outside information to grasp because it talks entirely about things that you can confirm in the room when it says you know hollow out clay mix apart or cut doors and windows to make a room where the room isn't there's room for you that's very easy to verify even if I'm kind of in lockdown mode like throughout my my young childhood and so that's instantly something that I really resonate with and then I also read Zhang Zi and other Daoist traditions and also practiced in the Chuan Zhen school of Daoist meditation and breathing exercise and things like that along with my parents so that goes way back yeah it's a great amplifier the authoritarian societies now have a more legitimate than usual excuse to collect more data and to dictate more things and so on but the democratic societies some of them are caught in a false dilemma because the authoritarian society were at first to get the virus so they get to set the international norm just by virtue of being the first jurisdiction with that virus and so people were for a time saying that we either sacrifice some human right including you know the right to move right lockdowns and also for the infodemic maybe we have to take down something so lockdown and take downs on one side to protect the public health or we stand up for individual rights and democracy and whatever and then we have to suffer the repercussions the exponential virus thing will get exponential and so it's like a dial that people dial between the two extremes and so for much of the early march until I think April that's kind of the model that many democratic countries are thinking about but of course Taiwan and New Zealand actually but also other countries start to show that this is a false dilemma and the pressure that we get from the authoritarian regimes earlier norms it's not a international war it's just one of the first norms to emerge and so to respond to the chat question about the day to day pressure exerted internationally by the authoritarian regime nearby this is actually I refer to it kind of like a tension from the Austronesian plate that coincides with the Philippine sea plate and bump into each other and create tension that's true earthquake too but because we are quite resilient this also makes the top of Taiwan the Saviya, Pendogunung the Yushan mountain many names the Jade mountain to grow 2.5 cm every year because of this plague instead of saying that we're dialing to the authoritarian norm or we're dialing to the you know less as facts so many people dial in norm we bump into each other and then start a new norm that's basically saying we deepen democracy because we trust the collective intelligence at the edges because the social innovator in the front line up and including hostess bars and nightlife district know the best way to protect themselves to do a real contact tracing system instead of absorbing all the data to the central update command center so we come up with this heuristic we simply do not collect any data that we were not already collecting before the pandemic that is to say we definitely said no to more data hoarding in the name of the pandemic and that really worked couple with the daily press conference this norm that takes care both of the human rights on one side and then the epidemiology on the other and with a I think a much better show to the economic side as well because when you do both sides that's actually the enabling condition for open recovery so I think even our most hit sectors like retail and catering and so on as of September and also October too we reached the highest revenue since the turn of the century in the past two decades and our export grew by almost 10% also in September so we're thriving economically and that's what this upwing instead of the other two wings this upwing attitude can bring you because it's what motivates people to think about economy, epidemiology media competence and things like that in a distributed decentralized fashion and all goes back to the Occupy the sunflower movement in the sunflower movement we learned from previous occupies that with all due respect went nowhere and the agenda setting power of the people is actually very elusive I had a long talk with Clay Cherokee about this it's very easy to manufacture counter power and that's actually some of your expertise I'm pretty sure but to manufacture counter power is not the same as creating true agenda setting power and there's this almost impossible bridge in the counter power part you can culture jam all you want it's actually very easy actually imperative to be fun when you're culture jamming something against a dictatorship or something fast, fair, fun that's all very easy but once you are in charge permanently in charge of the counter epidemic both infodemic and the pandemic efforts then of course what you're saying is true it doesn't seem like the COVID is a fun thing to make fun of COVID seems almost disrespectful of people who toiled and died because of it and so I'm talking about a very specific kind of fun and that is this self-deprecating humor and I'm not talking about anything else it's not a coincidence that our premier always make himself or his head or his butt the butt of the joke and that is because people don't traditionally connect a head of cabinet to such a self-deprecating humor and that is why I become a dollar M we can check out the video later and so the whole point is that the power that they once we make sure that we relinquish this kind of top-down world view the rest just flows from it there really is nothing that prevents the internet people from remixing our image into memes anyway so why don't we just foster it by like for example in my case declaring creative commons license to each and every photo that I take kind of deliberatively turning myself into a meme and witnessed very surprising like the rap band from Japan those monos that just took my interview samples and make a rap song about it totally unexpected I recorded the interview thinking that maybe journalists and scientists researchers will make use of it or maybe computational linguists but certainly not the rap band but because creative commons is for everyone so they remixed it anyway so I think we can leave the fun part the truly fun part and the fast and the fair part to the experts but we need to provide the raw material and we also need to promise upfront not to sue them when they remix our likeness and then make funny memes out of it this kind of previously obscure way of coming out and bind to the social media people signing whatever you do I'm not going to sue you or the presidential hackathon where the president comes out and say whatever you prototype in the three months five teams every year I promise to give you this trophy with a micro projector that will turn on shows the president's image giving a trophy to you so it's very meta and then we promise to make whatever you did in the past three months into public policy in the next 12 months presidential power as hackathon prize and so if you design this space like this you don't have to do anything in between that's left for the experts to do but you do have to become kind of a hollow pot a place where the people's creativity can be placed in due time in due time I know my father's mother my grandma who's still around 88 years old now is from a Lu Gang a Taiwanese holoca lineage and her husband came from Sichuan part of the air force and they married I think not even three years after the February 28 massacre and which I think was something very courageous I guess because my grandma's family at that time said that they disown her for marrying a you know air force occupier or refugee I mean take your pack but anyway and then and one of her uncles I think said that that there's no way that the marriage would last more than three years and he gambled one part of his body but in any case so such colorful illustration anecdotes aside there is of course a very large polarization in Taiwan that I feel personally as a child during the martial law between the group of people who enforce the martial law and the group of people that was subject to the martial law and the martial law gets lifted and gradually freedom of press and so on started and the first presidential election when I was 15 but still the society I would say is even more polarized because of the freedom of press and so on because previously the dictator or the benevolent dictator can pretend that there's no real polarization it's just pockets of dissidents you see all those rhetorics that people are using in the PRC we use that for the years I guess we're quite familiar with that but then something I think really nice happened and nice in a silver lining sense is that around the turn of century September 21st there was a huge earthquake that pretty much destroyed entire towns and people suffered a lot so this is the story I think it's also told in Lisbon it's a huge natural disaster that depolarized people because of this common urgency for the social sector people previously in the blue camp or the green camp to kind of see no other option than work together to rebuild the post earthquake Taiwan and that really helped the social sector to form previously there's no idea of the social sector people talk about the third sector around the turn of century but after the earthquake there's a real social sector going on and once you have a social sector you're less captured by the political narratives the divisiveness that's almost always creep up in every presidential and mayoral election from the public sector neither are you captured by the kind of taking one side or the other tension of the sector the economic sector the social sector almost by definition take all the sides and if all the social sector groups be it co-ops, social entrepreneurs not for profits, NGOs and so on have different sides all the better because the social sector as a whole sector is plural in nature and it's not forced to make four year plans in a democracy represented as a democracy I mean and so once you have a strong social sector these are the people who occupy the parliament these are the 20 NGOs in the sunflower revolution and once you have a social sector it's fine to be polarized because you have more than 20 policies I can always say you know I take all the sides if people ask are you blue camp or green camp or whatever I'm saying and my usual saying is that I take all the sides and I identify with 17 colors and take your color I can identify with any of those 17 colors I even memorize it that's the global goals colors by the way and so basically the more choices actually takes people out of the binary versus them thinking so instead of male female there's LGBTQA plus and once the choices become so many that it doesn't fit into working memory there will be an input box in which case that people can just be as plural as they want and that's the way out of divisiveness and polarization yeah it's interesting how they appropriate the words the words in the Taiwan context always mean radical transparency of the state to the people so that we earn the trust worthiness from the society not only to the government but really to each other and when you say when people think about credit unions and things like that and it's very interesting as in interesting times how they reappropriate that term and makes it something that basically offers preferential treatment and shame at citizens with disclosure of violators' names and denial of high speed rains travel and basically become something that is entirely totalitarian and I say this referring to the previous totalitarian pre-facial recognition as only subtotal like subtotalitarian and nowadays it could be totally totalitarian especially because in the central government in Beijing they basically just outline this social credit redefinition this ideological shift that each province are free to do even more draconian things as they want I think Suzhou or Hangzhou try something like really extreme and face a backlash from the social media there and Xinjiang try something even more extreme but there's no social media there so no backlash and so the whole point of this totalitarian regime shaping is based on predicated on a very different narrative of AI as something that is essentially what I call authoritarian intelligence and when people believe in the narrative authoritarian intelligence which surprisingly overlaps a lot with this singularity transhumanism point of view except of course only the state is transhuman everybody else are still human but that's narrative I think leads to singularity and it's singularly bad and so that is the narrative that we're hearing time and again it's like a silent song to work more efficiently better allocation of resources or whatever that's the PRC model and the counter narrative that we are saying is essentially deliberately very humble I say AI and I mean assistive intelligence and assistive like any assistive technology like this glass I'm wearing or the hearing aid that my grandma is wearing of course by definition is aligned with the individual's dignity that someone that they're assisting and also it's by definition must be accountable to whatever the choice that they make in proxy of the person that they assist these are the norms around assistive technologies that we already built anyway and so by rebuilding AI as assistive technology that's a pluralistic point of view and I think in the PRC's case most of the people that I worked with on github or whatever through I'm sure shadow socks they very much empathize with this view of not liberal democracy but plurality and assistive intelligence for them this is more easily felt that if they have agency if they can assist each other this could be as simple as the original RMS the Richard Stallman song right join us now and share this offer like holders cannot help their neighbors like these are almost primitive by today's highly evolved tech standards but for people in authoritarian intelligence regimes that's particular polka song holds enormous convincing power and showing that your current authoritarian intelligence doesn't enable you to help your neighbors it only enables you to to snitch against your neighbors to deduct their social credit so that you have a better seat in the plane or things like that and and that's you know cultural revolution stuff and and the people in the PRC really don't want to go back there just like in Taiwan we don't want to go back to the martial law I don't think people in the PRC the citizens want to go back to the cultural revolution base or people just you know snitch on each other and so on and so I think this very simple delineation of authoritarian intelligence on one side and assistive intelligence on the other is something that we can work together as a counter narrative that will appeal to people within the PRC