It could also be an active freedom, a freedom to form data collaboratives, data trusts , data coalitions that share the intersectional social data with each other while collectively determining where those data should go, and how to empower the world for good, based on participation governance of the data.
The runner-up are in normal ranges, like 60 percent, or 50 percent, or things like that. There’s something in a daily livestreamed, ask me anything press conference, where he responds to all the digital social innovations yesterday, and apply it immediately, that massively increase the mutual trust .
Most of the time, the people there, who get wounded and so on, their family would insist that a helicopter take their loved ones to the main Taiwan island for the specialized treatment because they don’t quite trust the local general practitioners and nurses in the local clinic.
Then the Game of Trust , I think, that talks about the prisoner’s dilemma, then the media framing effect, and then the small world network. Basically, Nicky makes a game, a interactive, out of each and every important competency subjects in the so-called Things You Can Play initiative.
Your country actually hosted something like that back in 2015. The Digital 5 Ministerial Summit of Digital Trust and Service Design, which both are very much related to this social innovation for democracy that we just talked about. At the time it was five members, in the Digital 5.
This is sometimes criticized as slow, inefficient, too much decentralization, or whatever, but in Taiwan, we believe that this is the only way forward for the government to show trust to people, that we are acting in people’s best interest, and be called out if we are not.
If, on the other hand, the government doesn’t trust the people, and expect people to blindly put their data, put their records and things, into the governmental system, then, of course, people will feel closer to each other on social media and far more distant with the government.
That was my main topic, to find out why people behave differently online than offline. I wrote to all the scholars that I can find working on that subject and have discussions. They trust me very quickly, and they don’t know that I’m only a early teenager.
Once you have all of them, and you have a commitment to a solution that works for everyone, your search for a solution is very well defined. It speeds up the process of convergence, and it speeds up the process of trust building. That’s one of the two.
From there, people also creates doubts, because there are people who say algorithms are more efficient than laws, so we don’t have to obey laws anymore, and so on. It also corrodes people’s trust in the government, the governance system, and also legitimacy of any nation states.
This is basically citizen science, people donating their houses, their roofs, the kindergartens, or schools, or whatever, to set up a citizen measurement devices, and sharing the data under a radically transparent way. I think the distinction that we make here is that we see the trust is mutual.
So we’re being handed more challenging cases in the past few months. That also means the career public servants trust this method more because previously they were more inclined to just suggest cases that involved only digital issues or things that they know there’s less to lose.
It was before Wikipedia was really popular, so we had to really radically trust our contributors, and they have an understanding. Even though I moved away from the community to other projects, the community still builds the Perl 6 language very successfully, and always keeping a very inclusive way.
It’s about whether people trusting paper more than computers to cast their votes, and with good reasons, because with paper you can see the paper trail, and with computers you really need put a researcher to verify the platform. It is a social issue. That, I agree completely.
There is a growing distrust in the idea of dis-empowerment from the citizens, because they are used to a lot of online communities where people have very close relationships, almost overnight, has caused swift trust , while the public service is still working on the month-based iteration cycle.
On the internet, culture evolve much more quickly. People tend to trust other people much more quickly, because they use the same words that they tend to use. This is something we do not see in face‑to‑face conversations. It is compressed, but also in a way expanded.
This is how we’re trying to get this, maybe a meme, a virus of the mind, to spread, that sometimes it is more efficient if you work in a transparent way. Sometimes, it is more useful if you trust the collective intelligence to provide input to your work.
But in that future, actually, the habit that you are now building, in the sense of trusting amateur drivers, is actually counterproductive to the future you’re describing, because at that time, we will need another professional class that can be the interface between the robots and the public.
The device, the biometric, and also the behavior need to all be signed somehow before one can actually trust a person on the other end of the screen. It’s not a scripted deepfake GPT port. So this is the second thing called Zero Trust . And the third thing is the digital co-prosperity of journalism with the major platforms, because in Taiwan, as in other places of the world, social media is sometimes prosocial and sometimes antisocial. And journalism is the only thing that keeps it prosocial. So we want civic journalists and professional…
…Now in Trump 2.0, and I would say also that Biden continued this idea of a trustworthy tech stack with Taiwan really at the center because everybody trusts our chips and the supply chain around them and cyber security. And so now in Trump 2.0, we’re seeing the idea of Clean Network being applied to things that are not telecommunications, for example the social media company ByteDance, which produces the service TikTok.
