(highlight:: Trust is Reciprocal: Publishing Gov Data Openly Fosters Co-Governance with Citizens
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think it is partly about how much government work as public servants trust as citizens, because the trust is reciprocal. Ye? If we don't publish things as open data, then it means kind of implicitly that we don't trust citizens with these data, right? If you have to file f i request and wait for 90 days and heavily red acted copy get sent to you, then of course, say something about itom the government, to the citizens, i sa. So by saying no, it's the other way around. We publish non privacy related data upon collection, a means tout, even before i had a chance to censor a, red act anything, i actually receive the data the same second as any citizen, Or any person in the planet, receive the data. It's in the commons, so to speak. So that's maximo trust. It says, you know, i'm ok for people to point out the data by us, because, paradoxically, it means that this public servent actually takes less blame, because they can now ask, so how Would you like to fork the government? How would you like to change the mass distribution so it doesn't prioritis places with better metros? Because previously we were distributing bases on the physical distance on the map, and not everyone on helicopter. So it's a horrible bias for people to have to take a long bus, because it doesn't really mean that the same kilometer on the map translate to the same hours of investment to to a nearby pharmacy. And when the open street map community points out this, instead of defencing, the minister can simply say, co teach us. How else would you do it? And because everyone has the same data. And then the better distribution method was then created. And over, i think the course of 24 hours, we implemented a better pre registration way of distributing mosque and so but my point is, doubt de sher data maxims in thetrus from the public Service to te citizens. In short, a citizens archo creates us.)
- Time 0:08:31
-

Anti-Social (Troll-ish Behavior is Largely a Product of People's Environment & Norms
Transcript:
Speaker 2
So there's this issue of the public trust in the government, but also the government want needing to trust individual citizens to be responsible with all this information anti i can Make good use of it. To what extent do you think the tyranese public is unusually trustworthy in that sense, in a way that might not transfer to other countries that perhaps have more trolls or weather's Just like less social harmony in general.
Speaker 1
L first of a, i don't think tha, there are actual truths among us rain. It's not like there is some other kind of being. Ras. There are trolling behaviors, i'm sure. But i think it's aarm, not a person. It is a mode. And a mode is largely a function of the space, not the function of the person. That is to say, of you are in a i usually used the metaphor of a disthe equivalent of a night club, of smokefild roomto shout to gat her, private bouncers, addictiv drinks and so on. Then, of course, over time, people kind of scream at top of their lungs, and without the capacity to listen, a skill, and i may fee, kind of trol like, i guess, when doing public delibration On that sort of places. But exactly of people, if you take them to the ditial equivalent of a public park, of a campus, of a public library and so on, suddenly they behave alike in a town hall conversation in a Very pro social way. So i think mostly it's what you're optimising for. If you're optimizing for clira advertisement, for impost spies, then well, good luck finding the common grounds. Our rough consensus, but i wouldn't attribute that to noto. Peo are less trollish. I always say, we have better bigita saegan, public invers stactures.)
- Time 0:10:55
-

(highlight:: "Don't Hold Conversations with the the Mayor in a Nightclub"
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So so when the question was phrased this way, then i don't have anything against my clubs re but whe when e complaint was like a when we try to hold tol hold conversations with our mayor In and li club, people get rowdy. May be thissillution is not to for e. I nilive distict.)
- Time 0:13:31
- collaboration, conversational_technology, deliberative_norms, favorite, governance, group_governance,

(highlight:: How Polis Leads to Argument Mapping and More Productive Disagreement
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Well, polis is polis a quadrati voting, an quadratic voting like two very different things. Polis is more like a pro social, social media and e experience would be, for example, backing 20 15, we wold send this message to the taxi companies and unions and also the uber drivers And so on, saying that we're going to hold a three weeks deliberation on line where you can actually vote or dont vote on all the different feelings that you have on the uber situation, Where people who don't have a professional license at that time can pick up stranger bits on the apt recommendation on search pricing, and they do it ten times a day. How do you feel about that? Ras, is a consultation, but the survey questions were not premediated it's actually cross orsed. So people can say, oh, i feel passenger liability insurance is the most important. Or they can say, not under cutting existing metres, i feel important. Or we should empower the loca, church and temples to run their own collaps using the ober like agoritm and so on. So basically, whatever the say is for everyone else to avote and down vote. But we do not measure the up votes or down votes by head count. We measure it by plurality. So using camens clustering, you can see on two dimensional map the people who feel close to you. And when people disagree with your sentiments, it doesn't mean you're buried. It means theyare more distant, socially distant. A across the different clusters, you actually see the visualization an suppressed agree or disagree, you move to people who resonate with your feelings. But then the twist is that we only hold ourselves accountable to the genda des crates by people who can manage to convince ta super majority of all the different clusters. And so the most dividing points are always visualized using principal component analysis along the x and y axis. So peopo can isa gamification to bring more consensus to the table. People have to consistently find more new and eclectic statements to convince the people across the aisle. And if you get, you know, mobilizing two thousand people to vote exactly the same it actually doesn't change their position. The their group doesn't grow. It actually the significant minoritis do need to be convinced in order for their ideas to be put on the for the consultation meeting of multisti holds o deliberation with woober and Taxi companies three weeks afterward. And so always we see this map at the end of the consultation, where there dislike five or six ideological points that people agree to disagree, very devisive. But then people spend their salaries on the things where they mostly agree with each other on most of the thangsless of his time, actually. And then we say, is seems normal, right? Because its crossers norm a. So people feel that a ober x can enter tion if you do tis this and this. And then people commits their support to that. Anda, another coordination problem solvedso so the point here is that ober became the c taxi company in tian, not because we forced them to. But the social norm say that they should do this. But stere innovations such as research, prising and so on, should also benefit the loca, church and temposa and so and so at the end of tes a positive sun situation. And that is very different. If you take the same town, hostile conversation to fasburk out of chart, will be kindo a flip of dots. Yot, will see many more calories spent on disagreements, right?)
- Time 0:14:21
-

(highlight:: How Polis Works In Practice
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Ok, so there's a lot there. Let's untack that little bit gradually. I want to come back to the quadrat inbet. Let's talk about this method first. Sugestit. You're saying you've got some difficult policy issue where there isn't an existing consensor, say, should be allowed to operate in tian, and if so, under what conditions? And there you'll kind o crowd source sub questions that are related to this, like the issue of passenger safety, of pricing of salaries, all these different components. People can pose questions that them people can vote on, saying the wen yeir i feelings, ah, they post feelings a, they post statements that then people can express agreement or disagreement With and you use that to basically seetat thery'll be like different clusters of opinion. Wele therel be a whole lot of people who basically say, yes, no, yes, e yas they all agree on this set of feelings. And then there'll be other clusters elsewhere. Oka, so that makes sense. Fall like systematizing the disagreements and understanding them. And then what do you do in order to, you talk a lot about consensus, or modand consensus, then what do you do in order to try to get, you know, the score board of global agreements?
Speaker 1
Ok, i among all those very diverse groups, what are some of the rough consensus that, nevertheless, everyone can agree on? And then only the winners on the leader boards.
Speaker 2
So so cross thedifferent clusters, you'll be like, what are the things that people do ron even if they disagree on other stuff? And then you tried to build from there, to find a policy that would match with the things that have broad support.
Speaker 1
Si, we then ask the stake holders, the taxi anber companies, and we list te, say, ten broad agreements acoss all the different clusters, to them, saying that this is the te crassers nor Tisness te agenda that we need yo talk to day. And this seems perfectly normal to me. So why don't you just commit on that? And if you do, what concrete items do you need from the government or from others take holdos in order to make it happen? And at that point, of course, because it's already the norm, any anything that dissociates herself from the norm, like saying, no, i don't think th insurance is important, there will Be a kind of tremendous cost to social trust and capital if any stayeholder actually goes against this. Crow soris brought rough consensus. So mostly they they offer a kind of technical, kind of compensation and things like that that's require for them to implement is, but nobody actually goes against the crossos agenda. Sin no tice is not important, because obviously this is important to people of all different stripes.)
- Time 0:17:50
-

How the Output of Polis is Used in Policymaking (Similar to How Web Standards are Made
Transcript:
Speaker 2
I see, ok si underad picture this in my head. So you've got th different clusters, and you've got a bunch of things, golls or feelings, that that most people share. But presumably there isn't still a consensus on what the policy should be, beause that's whe there's a disagreement in the first place. So in order to reach to get a majority of people to support, or, like ideally, a super majority to support, some particular policy proposal, do you do some kind of bargaining thing where It's like one cluster will compensate another another group? S an noyds, not about that. No, no. It's about, it's about defining the solution space together. So as the three weeks goes by, yoyou literally see the clusters inching closer to one another, because they've found some broad principles, like not undercutting existing metres,
Speaker 1
Insurance and so on, that actually convince them themselves that if you implement those values, then i can actually live with it. It's not perfect, but they can live with it. And so once the crowd sees a reflection of its own blended preferences, then that's the political moment to talk to the stake holdes, saying that our citizens already broadly agreed Out those ten design criteria. Now it's our job as policy makeus to craft a policy that can actually satisfy all tat en criteria that's already broadly agreed upon by people who initially feel very differently.
Speaker 2
Kan su, youe got the clusstes people understand different views, and there's somethings that people agree on. And then you're saying, you generally see a process whereby people converge, they begin to agree more and more, because you've started to high light the ols in the feelings that they Share. And then they can make persuasive arguments on the basis of shared values that will appeal to the other clusters. And ultimately, then, like povis, you won't eliminate the disagreements, but youill reduce the disagreements. And then there'll be enough of a shared set of opinions that there actually is a policy that some one can go away and elect the group cand go away and write that will satisfy most people
Speaker 1
Ais c overlapping consenses. And that's how internal protocos are made, by the way, it's just through humming. We don't do humming. It's more a visual hum but it's the same principle.)
- Time 0:20:22
-

(highlight:: Polis Fosters Integrative Argument Instead of Adversial Argument
Transcript:
Speaker 1
You frame your own feelings, your counter argument, in a independent statement that other people dan agree or disagree on. I see.
Speaker 2
Do you think that in general, this is a useful way, like, a way that people could have better conversations, not just on this platform, but in general? Is like, rather than responding, instead you just state more clearly your view and then try to get people to to agree with that.
Speaker 1
Pasic forking. So, yes, right. Rather than you na fighting to get your commits committed, u ou foriand and your commits are automatically committed. Ye.
Speaker 2
And the key difference there is that, because you're not in attacking or directly responding to a specific individual, it doesn't become personal. You don't get as strong, like negative feelings coming out.)
- Time 0:25:25
-

(highlight:: The More Specific the Discussion Prompt, The Greater Likelihood of Agreement
Transcript:
Speaker 2
It seems like a really key phenomenon here is that the more specific the question, the more agreement you haveand it's superinteresting that that's the case. It kind of reminds me of, i think, there's deu us in this exact moment in time seems particularly bad for people talking at a very abstract level about values. And that seems to amplify disagreements. The rise of this gues i heard wars. If you ask pep are they in general, pro gun rights or anti gun rights, then they tend to kind of split pretty 50 50. But the more specific you are about leck, should someone be able to buy this gun under this condition and carry it in this location? More concrete, specific questions tend to have much more ment then than the general values questions. Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1
Well, mostly because the feelings about specific cases feel relatable. But feelings around abstract ideologies isn't that relatable. There's much more psychological projections going on when you see a loaded tom right? But when it's very concrete, there's no, not that much room anyway, for psychological projections to to take place. And people generally converge on a shered understanding of what's actually going on when you become that specific. And also, it makes kind of trade off seem not like trade off b opportunities for innovation. Because in specific cases, there's always the possibility to resolve previous zeros intentions by introducing some new innovations to the table. But if it's, you know, time honored ideologically ats, it's very difficult to find genuine innovations that solve such feorisome tradeers. Yes, that makes sense. I guss, it is the case that we get stock and talk the most about the stuff that is the most intractable, because the other things have been solved a and we moved on.)
- Time 0:28:59
-

(highlight:: Polis is Not Designed for Decision-Making, It's About Agenda Setting
Transcript:
Speaker 2
I keep envisaging ways that this could be gamed in a sense, or at least that it could be like, non representative. And people might feel, you know, most people agree with me, but our views aren't getting getting enough weight, and feeling frustrated by that.
Speaker 1
But the point is that you have thi ti menta modo of a jury. Maybe your a citizens assembly trying to settle referendum decision, perhaps sos, a body that has decisional power. But as i mentioned, what we're crows lorsing is just a agenda. So its on the very beginning, is on the problem definition stage. So it's essentially just brain storming. When you're brain storming, statistical representative doesn't doesn't really matter. Really. What wa e want is a space where it's very difficult to shout some one down. Because the the embero de the beginning, the redico of a idea, is important for it to be resonating with a supporting infro structure, so that it can, as you grow into something that actually Is a genuine innovation out of this wicked problem configuration. So its more like an incubator stage of ideas. But when the genda are created, they're not binding on the decisional sense. Is only biding in the sense of a genda setting, like the stadeholder must talk about these things. But it's not decision. So it it relieves most of the attentions that we attribute to the final allocation of decision making power. Lagging a jury.
Speaker 2
Yer, interesting. And it sounds like the thing that you're really incentive i to do is to make a statement that people in other clusters will agree with. Some people who usually disagree with you say something t you believe that they also believe. K, and so this incentivizes you to understand their position and find common ground, basically. And why is that my incentive? Because then those shared views basically get elevated. And those are the things that potentially go forward in the process as the designed criteria does become thei desent criteria for polisy making.)
- Time 0:34:16
-

(highlight:: Polis Minimized Barriers to Policy Input from Citizens and Disincentivizes Vote Brigading
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Is there any sense in which this is a burden to citizens?
Speaker 1
W it's unlike a jury, where you have to participate rain, but it's fun like a game. As i mention, everyone probably two minutes of kindness. So taking two minutes out, i mean, you people do internest surveys all the time. If it just takes you two minutes to do a internest survey and it has a real policy making opportunity, then people generally is happy to do that and share with their friends and families. But if it means going through, you know, huge amount of threads and threats of it is less attractive to people. So a lot of thought have been given to make sure that the time feels rewardsing, and you don't have to spend a lot of time in this kind of platform. Because we cherish people's time, and we also want to make sure that they want to participate in a diverse range of these petitions or surveys or brain storming spaces, without being Overcaptured by any one particular topic, unless, of course, yo really motivated. Yes, ye.
Speaker 2
I guess i was thinking with the feeling of obligation to participate, people might feel that if they were like, i really need my views to be counted. I really need the views of people and people like me to be included. I guess, because you're not doing the head counting thing, because it's not a voting system, you don't have to worry so much, because as long as there's a few people who kind of share your Values on the platform, is a thines tat. You don't have to get involved in order to, like, make sure that you like, a dominating or, or, you know, getting a big weight in in the conversation. Which is, which is quite different.)
- Time 0:36:53
-

(highlight:: After Agenda is Set with Polis, It is Discussed Publicly By Multiple Stakeholders
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So that's the stage of the process wheretee, face to face, life streamed maltis tihote forim, where we agree to bind ourselves to talk about the polis crassers agenda and onlydes as Te agenda. So the expertse as you mentioned, in comparative legislation and things like that, is used to find good solutions within the broadly defon solution space.
Speaker 2
I say, ok, si, sothen have a live streamed discussion where you'll invite a whole lot of people who i guess e thy've been they've been selected by some one for some reason, because they Know a lot about this tomic or their representative of a group, and they've committed to talking about the shared values, or othe shared desiderata that have come out of this desired Policy properties. Is there nythin you want to say about how those events are run that has allowed them to to go better than they otherwise might?
Speaker 1
If you look at the participation office? Te web si, p o, p d t w, or the collaborative meetings webside, c n that. Pds t w, we explain our mythodologies quite clearly. De, and maybe we can do that as a kind of ril to link to, instead of me having to go through the e hol playback here. But there's a mythodology, and we've run, mor estimation, more than 100 of those either lives dreamed, or at least transcript published, recording. Stal, and there's many case studies also. So ill just refer you to ditinal ministerte t w, and the two subsides that explains this mechanism.)
- Time 0:39:09
-

(highlight:: Polis Limits Statements to 140 Characters
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Yet, just comig back to polas and people making statements and agreeing and disagreeing. What are the limits on, say, the length, like the style that they can be in? Cause you could, in theory, make a statement that is kind that is just to reply, that's like this other person, tad x. And i think that's wrong because of ausof y. And then you cand hav got a reply button.
Speaker 1
Do you have to impose some constraintsy usually is round 100, forty characters, or 280 letters to twetlant, yes, physically it is a twit like phenomena. But if statement doesn't make any sense, people can also press puss, right? So and then itt doesn't result in a kind of move in the high dimensional space of statements and clusters, i suppose.
Speaker 2
What if i have quite a complicated argument for why i feel a particular way that doesn't fit in that number of characters? Then what do i do?
Speaker 1
But the sing is tat the explanation, the kind of supporting fogs and so on, are for the motistic hode development, the next stage. Ya, but what we're doing now is the discover stage. O cani, so the discover stage, all it matters is that i feel this way. I is is more like a good feeling than anything else. Like x dimension must be taken care of or you must avoid the wy dimension. Now, the actual data evidences are very important, but that's why we have the expert ar the motives they hold et befor it.
Speaker 2
So this is more about aggregating values and preferences, and then the next stage is more about beliefs and empirical information and so on.)
- Time 0:40:44
-

(highlight:: Using Quadratic Voting to Prevent Favoritism in National Project Selection
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So basically, the idea here is that anyone can propose an idea that requires significant investment from the government in order to solve one or more of the sustenbl de mongo challenges, Global challenges. And then, of course, there's limited bandwith governmental imput to ideas like this. So basically, while anyone can propose an idea, the idea that resinats with the most of the people eventually gets the incubation it needs to progress to the next stage. So out of say, 200 or so projects, at the end of the day, after a couple months, we select only 20 teams to go through the incubation. And finally, five teams receive the presidential trophy. So from the 200 teams, each corresponding to one or more of s d g a, two te 20, we ask any one who are simas authenticated participants, to alocate 99 points to those 200 projects. But is quadratic meaning that if you really like a project, the most you can vote is nine vots, which translate to 81 credit points. Because you don't have 100, so cant votemvo sorry. So the point here is that, because if you don't design things this way, the most likely is that just people vote, vote for their friends project with all their points, and they don't even Bother to look at the other ideas, to fints, energies and so on. So the incentive here is that, after voting for nine votes, spending 81, so you have 18 left, people are incentivised to look at least f three ther project, because nobody want to squander Their points. So they like something else, they vote four votes, 16. They still have two points left. They look at two others, and they discover, actually, these two work better then original one. So they take some of the votes back. Reibuted, seven, seven, six and six, an two, or whatever. The point here is that, on average, each person then votes for four or more, like six or seven different projects that they ef that have some sort of energy. Rt, so and then that's it. And then we tally the votes. And because the marginal cost of each vote is the same as marginal retun the impact of the vote. So we always get the broadset of 20 projects that makes everyone feel they have won a little bit. And then the project that didn't make the cut have a clear kind of senergy map where they can re locate tor talents to the one or two of the 20 projects that actually resonates the most with Stem. So again, like polis, this is a way to use mechanism design to cn reverse game, the devoting game, to make sure that people want to share the most of their expertis al finding energies Between the incubating projects.)
- Time 0:43:00
-

(highlight:: Maximizing Outcome through Broad Participation and Mechanism Design in Voting
Summary:
In a voting system where each person votes for multiple projects related to energy, the goal is to ensure a diverse selection of projects is selected and that individuals feel represented.
By leveraging mechanism design, the process encourages people to share their expertise across a broad set of projects, leading to a more balanced outcome. To evaluate success, analyzing voting behavior is crucial, as the effectiveness hinges on participants distributing their votes across various projects rather than concentrating them on a few.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
The point here is that, on average, each person then votes for four or more, like six or seven different projects that they ef that have some sort of energy. Rt, so and then that's it. And then we tally the votes. And because the marginal cost of each vote is the same as marginal retun the impact of the vote. So we always get the broadset of 20 projects that makes everyone feel they have won a little bit. And then the project that didn't make the cut have a clear kind of senergy map where they can re locate tor talents to the one or two of the 20 projects that actually resonates the most with Stem. So again, like polis, this is a way to use mechanism design to cn reverse game, the devoting game, to make sure that people want to share the most of their expertis al finding energies Between the incubating projects.
Speaker 2
Is there a way of telling whether this has led to a better outcome? In this case, maybe you can just look at it and see intuitively that the results seem seem good, seem more balanced. And also, i think mostly it's just looking at actual voting behavior.
Speaker 1
It would fail if most of the voters just vote for nine votes, discard e 18, right? Then then it becomes the same as one person, one vote with more clicks, rit nine more clicks. But no, people don't behave this way.)
- Time 0:44:53
-

(highlight:: Quadratic Funding: Blending Governmental Incentives with Crowdsourced Funding
Transcript:
Speaker 2
You mentioned quadratic funding, which is, i guess, this more elaborate extension of quadratic ti in a sens. Do you have plans to actually try to experiment with that in an application? Yes.
Speaker 1
So wal we're now doing is that we would like to implement what we could pay for success mordo, which was actual re invented a court, retroactive public good funding. But its actually the same flank. Asto pay for success, or social impact bond, many different names, is this basic idea that the government, instead of giving out a contract or subsidy, gives out a promise that a independent Board assesses whether a project have delivered some return of investment in the social sense, or inthe environmental sense. And by the end that evaloation period, the governmentis committed to pay out in the form of awards up to the work that's already done. And then the idea here is that them people can secrettise this ra, that they can take this government's whole promise and then start, kind of early, anjo stage funding, or whatever, Funding to pay for the actual investment they need to do in order to achieve that common good. And so this works really well with quadretic funding, because the panel of judges, previously is either a few people that a government trust a lot, but then maybe they're not diverse Enough, or is just crow funding, but then people with a lot more money actually speaks louder, almost by difinition in the crow funding scenario. So quadretic funding is like between a panel of a ward commede and pure funding, and choose something in the middle that has, hopefully the benefit of both.)
- Time 0:48:53
-

(highlight:: Slido, Polis, and Multi-Stakeholder Meetings for Deliberative Democracy
Summary:
Engaging in a petition by providing a signature offers a minimal chance of actively contributing to a solution.
However, collaborating in multi-stakeholder meetings allows petitioners to participate in co-creating solutions. This approach includes formal invitations to join conversations, live streaming for remote participation, and platforms like Slido and Polis for interactive idea-sharing and upvoting.
Slido offers real-time engagement, while Polis extends over several weeks.
Consequently, using these tools enhances the bandwidth and effectiveness of collaboration compared to passive textual input in a petition.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think that the band with te band with was lower than ours. I say because if you are a someone who join in a petition to profi your signature, there's zero, almost zero chance, a negligible chance, that you will actually be consulted to cocreate A solution physically. Your signature only said it's important, and that's all and only. The initiator may be a receive er foam call or something from the parlimentarian. But in the taanes design, in our collaboration meetings, all the petitioners get a formal invitation to join on the multisti holder conversation. And for people who don't have the travelling conditions, then they can also join through life streaming. And then we use another polis like tol, called slido. Actually, many people use that nowadays. Is notces for deliberative democracy. So it's like a kind of real time version. Where as polis takes three weeks or more. Slido takes maybe four hours. But during those four hours, listening into the live strain, people can pose their own ideas and also up votes, but not down votes, on people's ideas. And so augmented with slido and life streaming, and so one, there's much more bandwith to be had to the collaboration meeting as a result of the petition, as compared to simply just e Textal input to the petitionor just adding your name on it.)
- Time 0:53:09
-

Using Slido to Facilitate Real Time Deliberative Democracy (Inspired by Better Reykjavik
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Where as polis takes three weeks or more. Slido takes maybe four hours. But during those four hours, listening into the live strain, people can pose their own ideas and also up votes, but not down votes, on people's ideas. And so augmented with slido and life streaming, and so one, there's much more bandwith to be had to the collaboration meeting as a result of the petition, as compared to simply just e Textal input to the petitionor just adding your name on it. And so for caree public service, it makes a world of difference, because it's not just about clarifying the demont about innovating. So our petition platform learns a page from beterde cavic from island, that people actually can propose dheir po arguments and counter arguments on two different columns, again, Out voting and down voting, again, without reply. Butson. So basically, when we actually hold a face to face collaboration meeting, we take the kind of cream of the crop on the po endcounter ments, and then say, you know, let's collaborate. And take that as the desine criteria. Thes are the things that we must take care of, and these are the risk and dangers that we must take care to avoid, and then let's cocreate something that's better. And so then it's much more imp tats, more likely to result in something that reduce the burden and also reduce the risk for the career public servants involved.)
- Time 0:54:01
-

(highlight:: Occupy Movements Struggle with Establishing Coherent Goals Because of Radical Inclusivity
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I've already read a sufficient amount of manure castells and other occupied movements and see how they could sparow out of control, right? So there's a lot of hope, a lot of social solidarity and so on. But it's also very easy to get nowhere, because of the, essentially the invodamic y. There's just so much information on so many different accounts and so on, it feels very difficult, actually, to get listened to. And as the occupy movement continues, it becomes horter and harter to get into something of coherence because it's all inclusive. Any one can join the conversation. So the main contribution togov zero, a me included, made is to make sure that there is this consistent, kind of public logic of what what conversation actually transpired within the Occupyed parliament. And in the street near the parliament, the 20 or so ingos all contributed to kind of be more specific. So one corner talk about labor conditions after the cross strat agreement. One talk about severate security and forg and things like thatre so basically, each become a more focused conversation facilitated by professional facilitates. And our work is just to make sure that those rough consensus cross polinate more easily. Because, after we all want this demonstration to go somewhere instead of nowhere.)
- Time 0:55:43
-

(highlight:: Importance of Analogue Aspect in Deliberative Democracy
Summary:
Deliberative democracy involves a focus on people-to-people relationships, nonverbal communication, and community organization on a more physical level.
This analogue part is seen as equally important as the digital aspects like streaming. The speaker emphasizes the significance of community organization and personal connections, drawing on their own experiences in cooperative movements before the internet era and linking it to their current work in collaboration and democracy.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I mean, i'm still working on the same project. Ra democracy is a technology for swift trust and things like that. De was my research topic when i was 15, so i guess i had never awe j a itle different project. Av been working on the projects. If you had to work ot something else yet, what might it be? I think one of the ideas now in deliberative democracy, as yoave mentioned, is a more analogue part. We talk about the digto democracy life, treaming and things like that. But there's a equal analogue counterpart that focus on the kind of people to people relationship, resinating with people, nonvi communication on a more kind of almost physical sense. And so an so i think that part is equally important. Community organization and things like that is equally important. And i think it's just a kind of coincidence that was a pretty good, if i may so say so. Myself programmer, and i encountered a free sulfer movement and open source movement that gives rise to this kind of collaboration scale thing. But before i was part of the internet, so to speak, when i was 12, i actually participated, when i was eight or nine a lot in the loco co operative movements, consumer cp in particular, But also many other commun organization on the face to face scale.)
- Time 1:06:00
-

(highlight:: Assistive Intelligence & Augmented Collective Intelligence are like Fire
Transcript:
Speaker 1
But the fact that we're talking about this means that people already worry about sufficiently that pepl are working on tackling this very problem to make what i call assisteve intelligence, Or augmented collective intelligence, the predominant norm, at least intedemocratic countries like the g p. A i focusing the a i research on that particular value system. And so just like the invention of fire, of course, i may worry that fire well destroy entire cities, but if sufficient amount of fire wielders are worry about the same thing, then we teach Young people to use fire responsibly via cooking classes and sharing open recipes, as early as may be kindergarten. And then we design or builly materials with fire proof materials.)
- Time 1:12:01
-

(highlight:: Shared Reality/Understanding is a Prerequisite for Deliberative Democracy
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I mean things don't build ampathy in a more kind of non psychological projecting, but actually inter a subjective way. And the reason why is dot for people who feel very differently. Mostly that's because it's very difficult to put one in another's shoes if we don't share a significant living experience around te topic that we discuss. And so the fundamental limit of poes like technology is the shared experiences that people have when they look at the same concrete statement. Now, immersive realities, especially interactive games in immersive realities, but a cortier reality is a kind of natural solution. So basically, i arrange the immersive reality my reality, diutalize it, inviting you into my reality, maybe very briefly, just a couple of minutes. And then that does more than pages and pages of wot to convey the previously incomeasurable values and things that i value to you. So if immersive reality can do this very quickly, then the question is, how to modo that immessive reality? Does everyone need to learn blender or unity, or things like that, or or whether some sort of just free association from the brain or from some artistic medium and so on, can translate Easily to the sort of reality shaping motives. And that's why i'm excited.)
- Time 1:13:02
-

(highlight:: Improving Deliberations and Decision-Making Through Attention Management
Transcript:
Speaker 1
No. Iam not saying that it replaces any artistic medium or veto conferency mediumor things like that. Im more saying that it manages the attention more effectively, like allowing the same set of noverb or micro expressions to survive internet transmission. Because, i mean, if you have suffered a zom fatigue befor, you know exactly what i'm talking about, because it is just very difficult to sustain your attention, even in together mode Ilikein skybor tems to more than, say, three persons over the two dimension screen over, say, 20 minutes. It's just what we're not designed to do. Tha. But on the other hand, if instead of capturing all the micro expressions, which is rather difficult, we capture e the intention and then just re apply that sken to the evata, or as many Wave nets like a system are now doing, like a, youcan convey, using your verbal tonaly and things like that, such numberb expressions, even in a relatively low band with microphoner Or ear phone and things like that. Then it adds kind of difference neence laya, that we can actually stay focus and on topic, even though we're technically in different spaces. And maybe it's not about electrodes. It maybe it's about kind of detecting your finger and musclesn your arms and things like that. But maybe what what iam trying to say is that a higher aplink bandwith of the non verbal parts of our body preserved and transmitted accurately to the counterpart across the screen. I think that aids the bandwis of the non verbale part of communication, lest only the kind of verbal, rational, edited part of our statements survive internal conversations.)
- Time 1:15:09
-

(highlight:: 1min Snip
Transcript:
Speaker 2
But if they did it in the real world, then we could no longer use taxation as much to help poor people. Say, that would be like a very common objection that you might get from many peopleyet defiitetely, yet definitely.
Speaker 1
And of course, giventete resource constraints. For example, when there's no sufficient amount of musk production, i also helped in visualizing the fair distribution of ratient musks. Anrationing is sort of coercion, because o cons really, you know, by your freedom a hot order musk to sell it to people for for profit. But on the other hand, we also, instead of insisting on pition in mosk, actually produced mosqu initially. You no less than two million a day in a country of ten to three million, but we quickly ram up te medical gran moss production to more than 20 million a day, in in which case the rationing Is still there to protect the people who are less well informed or less economically fordable. But an thereis a parallel, a fashioned industry of people wearing pink masks and rainbow mask and things that express themself and so on. So physically. What i am trying to say is that, of course, when the resource is scarce, some sort of coercion apply, in e fast, self corrective and fair fashion is probably but this must not blind us to The possibility, indeed, a innovation)
- Time 1:28:21
-

(highlight:: Amplify Ideas for Social Innovation By Requiring Publication of Office Hour Transcripts
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So basically, the idea is very simple. There's multiple spaces for collaboration. For example, my own office, desocia inovation lab, is open for odd associa inovators. And personally, every wednesday, you can't book, forty minutes of my time in the office hour to talk about whatever such innovation you're working on. And my only requirement is that it's radically transparent, meaning datte transcript anda recording, or at least one of whis is published in the creative commons. And so people, of course, lobby me, but they actually just lobby te the internatra te community. Because of radical transparency, people have to make prose social arguments. It doesn't work for radical transparency if you argue for something that's bad for everyone else, wer it would look really bad. So physically, it's not me, personally that helps you out. But i amplify the social inovators ideas)
- Time 1:36:28
-

(highlight:: Taiwan's Embracement of Open Data & API-First Approach to Enable Civic Innovation
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Hat could make, for example, you know, an f a c web sit about the da vo on that domain, but they wouldn't have access to the a p ias. They woudn't have access to the data. They wouldn't have access to the data basis to actually offer any services. All they could do is just kind of have a wicky, for example. But it seems like in ti an it's a lot easier to start providing actual useful services using, using, effectively government. I t am. I understanding that correctly, that is correct.
Speaker 1
And the reason why is embrace of open data and real time open data are open api by the government services. So basically, if you don't like how the government web side portray a serten set of data, for example, the real time inventry of mosque infalmacies in early 20 20, you can always tap the Api, which up days every 30 seconds, and show your own visualisation. And if you don't like mobs, you can try a chet bot, or virtureality, voice assistance, whatever. And by de coupling the api, pot of the procurement and the user kind of interactive part of the procurement. It also may show that the front ends, because it iterates so quickly and people have so many different, diverse needs, it means that we don't need to wait for a new procurement contract. We can always say ocade to start up, specialize in chetbotlist, build a chepa portal to vaxination location and things like that.
Speaker 2
Ye, how far can you take this? Is this true across many, or most tionese government services? Or is it kind of only a minority where that's feasible?
Speaker 1
It is a majority. Definitely. If you look at a oben data index among ather jurisdictions, i think tiim placed consistently on the top for quite a few years before they decide not to do not publish that ranking any more, Because the the ti leaders already all have the main things covered, basedin things covered. But i think anything that doesn't have privacy implications or tra secret implication or national securety implications, if the government doesn't publish it as open data or api, It's now assumed as the government's shortcoming. And you can go to data w and make a request saying that, ha, this is only visible as information on as data. What wod gives. Let's make a data pipe line out of this. And very quickly, we will make a data pipeline out of this o. This is now held as a norm dot. Anything that is f o i, a requestable that doesn't have privacy and so on, impacts, must be used in a data first, api first wayye)
- Time 1:50:49
-

(highlight:: Taiwan's Embracement of Open Data & API-First Approach to Enable Civic Innovation
Summary:
Taiwan's government's embrace of open data and real-time APIs allows individuals and companies to access and leverage government data for creating innovative services.
By providing open APIs that update regularly, such as real-time inventory information, Taiwan enables customization of data interpretation and service delivery. This approach fosters rapid iteration in service development, eliminating the need for new procurement contracts.
Taiwanese government services prioritize making data accessible via APIs, unless there are privacy or security concerns, leading to a norm where non-sensitive information is expected to be available in a data-first, API-first manner, promoting transparency and innovation.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Hat could make, for example, you know, an f a c web sit about the da vo on that domain, but they wouldn't have access to the a p ias. They woudn't have access to the data. They wouldn't have access to the data basis to actually offer any services. All they could do is just kind of have a wicky, for example. But it seems like in ti an it's a lot easier to start providing actual useful services using, using, effectively government. I t am. I understanding that correctly, that is correct.
Speaker 1
And the reason why is embrace of open data and real time open data are open api by the government services. So basically, if you don't like how the government web side portray a serten set of data, for example, the real time inventry of mosque infalmacies in early 20 20, you can always tap the Api, which up days every 30 seconds, and show your own visualisation. And if you don't like mobs, you can try a chet bot, or virtureality, voice assistance, whatever. And by de coupling the api, pot of the procurement and the user kind of interactive part of the procurement. It also may show that the front ends, because it iterates so quickly and people have so many different, diverse needs, it means that we don't need to wait for a new procurement contract. We can always say ocade to start up, specialize in chetbotlist, build a chepa portal to vaxination location and things like that.
Speaker 2
Ye, how far can you take this? Is this true across many, or most tionese government services? Or is it kind of only a minority where that's feasible?
Speaker 1
It is a majority. Definitely. If you look at a oben data index among ather jurisdictions, i think tiim placed consistently on the top for quite a few years before they decide not to do not publish that ranking any more, Because the the ti leaders already all have the main things covered, basedin things covered. But i think anything that doesn't have privacy implications or tra secret implication or national securety implications, if the government doesn't publish it as open data or api, It's now assumed as the government's shortcoming. And you can go to data w and make a request saying that, ha, this is only visible as information on as data. What wod gives. Let's make a data pipe line out of this. And very quickly, we will make a data pipeline out of this o. This is now held as a norm dot. Anything that is f o i, a requestable that doesn't have privacy and so on, impacts, must be used in a data first, api first wayye)
- Time 1:50:49
-

(highlight:: Trust is Reciprocal: Publishing Gov Data Openly Fosters Co-Governance with Citizens
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think it is partly about how much government work as public servants trust as citizens, because the trust is reciprocal. Ye? If we don't publish things as open data, then it means kind of implicitly that we don't trust citizens with these data, right? If you have to file f i request and wait for 90 days and heavily red acted copy get sent to you, then of course, say something about itom the government, to the citizens, i sa. So by saying no, it's the other way around. We publish non privacy related data upon collection, a means tout, even before i had a chance to censor a, red act anything, i actually receive the data the same second as any citizen, Or any person in the planet, receive the data. It's in the commons, so to speak. So that's maximo trust. It says, you know, i'm ok for people to point out the data by us, because, paradoxically, it means that this public servent actually takes less blame, because they can now ask, so how Would you like to fork the government? How would you like to change the mass distribution so it doesn't prioritis places with better metros? Because previously we were distributing bases on the physical distance on the map, and not everyone on helicopter. So it's a horrible bias for people to have to take a long bus, because it doesn't really mean that the same kilometer on the map translate to the same hours of investment to to a nearby pharmacy. And when the open street map community points out this, instead of defencing, the minister can simply say, co teach us. How else would you do it? And because everyone has the same data. And then the better distribution method was then created. And over, i think the course of 24 hours, we implemented a better pre registration way of distributing mosque and so but my point is, doubt de sher data maxims in thetrus from the public Service to te citizens. In short, a citizens archo creates us.)
- Time 0:08:31
-

Anti-Social (Troll-ish Behavior is Largely a Product of People's Environment & Norms
Transcript:
Speaker 2
So there's this issue of the public trust in the government, but also the government want needing to trust individual citizens to be responsible with all this information anti i can Make good use of it. To what extent do you think the tyranese public is unusually trustworthy in that sense, in a way that might not transfer to other countries that perhaps have more trolls or weather's Just like less social harmony in general.
Speaker 1
L first of a, i don't think tha, there are actual truths among us rain. It's not like there is some other kind of being. Ras. There are trolling behaviors, i'm sure. But i think it's aarm, not a person. It is a mode. And a mode is largely a function of the space, not the function of the person. That is to say, of you are in a i usually used the metaphor of a disthe equivalent of a night club, of smokefild roomto shout to gat her, private bouncers, addictiv drinks and so on. Then, of course, over time, people kind of scream at top of their lungs, and without the capacity to listen, a skill, and i may fee, kind of trol like, i guess, when doing public delibration On that sort of places. But exactly of people, if you take them to the ditial equivalent of a public park, of a campus, of a public library and so on, suddenly they behave alike in a town hall conversation in a Very pro social way. So i think mostly it's what you're optimising for. If you're optimizing for clira advertisement, for impost spies, then well, good luck finding the common grounds. Our rough consensus, but i wouldn't attribute that to noto. Peo are less trollish. I always say, we have better bigita saegan, public invers stactures.)
- Time 0:10:55
-

(highlight:: "Don't Hold Conversations with the the Mayor in a Nightclub"
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So so when the question was phrased this way, then i don't have anything against my clubs re but whe when e complaint was like a when we try to hold tol hold conversations with our mayor In and li club, people get rowdy. May be thissillution is not to for e. I nilive distict.)
- Time 0:13:31
- collaboration, conversational_technology, deliberative_norms, favorite, governance, group_governance,

(highlight:: How Polis Leads to Argument Mapping and More Productive Disagreement
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Well, polis is polis a quadrati voting, an quadratic voting like two very different things. Polis is more like a pro social, social media and e experience would be, for example, backing 20 15, we wold send this message to the taxi companies and unions and also the uber drivers And so on, saying that we're going to hold a three weeks deliberation on line where you can actually vote or dont vote on all the different feelings that you have on the uber situation, Where people who don't have a professional license at that time can pick up stranger bits on the apt recommendation on search pricing, and they do it ten times a day. How do you feel about that? Ras, is a consultation, but the survey questions were not premediated it's actually cross orsed. So people can say, oh, i feel passenger liability insurance is the most important. Or they can say, not under cutting existing metres, i feel important. Or we should empower the loca, church and temples to run their own collaps using the ober like agoritm and so on. So basically, whatever the say is for everyone else to avote and down vote. But we do not measure the up votes or down votes by head count. We measure it by plurality. So using camens clustering, you can see on two dimensional map the people who feel close to you. And when people disagree with your sentiments, it doesn't mean you're buried. It means theyare more distant, socially distant. A across the different clusters, you actually see the visualization an suppressed agree or disagree, you move to people who resonate with your feelings. But then the twist is that we only hold ourselves accountable to the genda des crates by people who can manage to convince ta super majority of all the different clusters. And so the most dividing points are always visualized using principal component analysis along the x and y axis. So peopo can isa gamification to bring more consensus to the table. People have to consistently find more new and eclectic statements to convince the people across the aisle. And if you get, you know, mobilizing two thousand people to vote exactly the same it actually doesn't change their position. The their group doesn't grow. It actually the significant minoritis do need to be convinced in order for their ideas to be put on the for the consultation meeting of multisti holds o deliberation with woober and Taxi companies three weeks afterward. And so always we see this map at the end of the consultation, where there dislike five or six ideological points that people agree to disagree, very devisive. But then people spend their salaries on the things where they mostly agree with each other on most of the thangsless of his time, actually. And then we say, is seems normal, right? Because its crossers norm a. So people feel that a ober x can enter tion if you do tis this and this. And then people commits their support to that. Anda, another coordination problem solvedso so the point here is that ober became the c taxi company in tian, not because we forced them to. But the social norm say that they should do this. But stere innovations such as research, prising and so on, should also benefit the loca, church and temposa and so and so at the end of tes a positive sun situation. And that is very different. If you take the same town, hostile conversation to fasburk out of chart, will be kindo a flip of dots. Yot, will see many more calories spent on disagreements, right?)
- Time 0:14:21
-

(highlight:: How Polis Works In Practice
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Ok, so there's a lot there. Let's untack that little bit gradually. I want to come back to the quadrat inbet. Let's talk about this method first. Sugestit. You're saying you've got some difficult policy issue where there isn't an existing consensor, say, should be allowed to operate in tian, and if so, under what conditions? And there you'll kind o crowd source sub questions that are related to this, like the issue of passenger safety, of pricing of salaries, all these different components. People can pose questions that them people can vote on, saying the wen yeir i feelings, ah, they post feelings a, they post statements that then people can express agreement or disagreement With and you use that to basically seetat thery'll be like different clusters of opinion. Wele therel be a whole lot of people who basically say, yes, no, yes, e yas they all agree on this set of feelings. And then there'll be other clusters elsewhere. Oka, so that makes sense. Fall like systematizing the disagreements and understanding them. And then what do you do in order to, you talk a lot about consensus, or modand consensus, then what do you do in order to try to get, you know, the score board of global agreements?
Speaker 1
Ok, i among all those very diverse groups, what are some of the rough consensus that, nevertheless, everyone can agree on? And then only the winners on the leader boards.
Speaker 2
So so cross thedifferent clusters, you'll be like, what are the things that people do ron even if they disagree on other stuff? And then you tried to build from there, to find a policy that would match with the things that have broad support.
Speaker 1
Si, we then ask the stake holders, the taxi anber companies, and we list te, say, ten broad agreements acoss all the different clusters, to them, saying that this is the te crassers nor Tisness te agenda that we need yo talk to day. And this seems perfectly normal to me. So why don't you just commit on that? And if you do, what concrete items do you need from the government or from others take holdos in order to make it happen? And at that point, of course, because it's already the norm, any anything that dissociates herself from the norm, like saying, no, i don't think th insurance is important, there will Be a kind of tremendous cost to social trust and capital if any stayeholder actually goes against this. Crow soris brought rough consensus. So mostly they they offer a kind of technical, kind of compensation and things like that that's require for them to implement is, but nobody actually goes against the crossos agenda. Sin no tice is not important, because obviously this is important to people of all different stripes.)
- Time 0:17:50
-

How the Output of Polis is Used in Policymaking (Similar to How Web Standards are Made
Transcript:
Speaker 2
I see, ok si underad picture this in my head. So you've got th different clusters, and you've got a bunch of things, golls or feelings, that that most people share. But presumably there isn't still a consensus on what the policy should be, beause that's whe there's a disagreement in the first place. So in order to reach to get a majority of people to support, or, like ideally, a super majority to support, some particular policy proposal, do you do some kind of bargaining thing where It's like one cluster will compensate another another group? S an noyds, not about that. No, no. It's about, it's about defining the solution space together. So as the three weeks goes by, yoyou literally see the clusters inching closer to one another, because they've found some broad principles, like not undercutting existing metres,
Speaker 1
Insurance and so on, that actually convince them themselves that if you implement those values, then i can actually live with it. It's not perfect, but they can live with it. And so once the crowd sees a reflection of its own blended preferences, then that's the political moment to talk to the stake holdes, saying that our citizens already broadly agreed Out those ten design criteria. Now it's our job as policy makeus to craft a policy that can actually satisfy all tat en criteria that's already broadly agreed upon by people who initially feel very differently.
Speaker 2
Kan su, youe got the clusstes people understand different views, and there's somethings that people agree on. And then you're saying, you generally see a process whereby people converge, they begin to agree more and more, because you've started to high light the ols in the feelings that they Share. And then they can make persuasive arguments on the basis of shared values that will appeal to the other clusters. And ultimately, then, like povis, you won't eliminate the disagreements, but youill reduce the disagreements. And then there'll be enough of a shared set of opinions that there actually is a policy that some one can go away and elect the group cand go away and write that will satisfy most people
Speaker 1
Ais c overlapping consenses. And that's how internal protocos are made, by the way, it's just through humming. We don't do humming. It's more a visual hum but it's the same principle.)
- Time 0:20:22
-

(highlight:: Polis Fosters Integrative Argument Instead of Adversial Argument
Transcript:
Speaker 1
You frame your own feelings, your counter argument, in a independent statement that other people dan agree or disagree on. I see.
Speaker 2
Do you think that in general, this is a useful way, like, a way that people could have better conversations, not just on this platform, but in general? Is like, rather than responding, instead you just state more clearly your view and then try to get people to to agree with that.
Speaker 1
Pasic forking. So, yes, right. Rather than you na fighting to get your commits committed, u ou foriand and your commits are automatically committed. Ye.
Speaker 2
And the key difference there is that, because you're not in attacking or directly responding to a specific individual, it doesn't become personal. You don't get as strong, like negative feelings coming out.)
- Time 0:25:25
-

(highlight:: The More Specific the Discussion Prompt, The Greater Likelihood of Agreement
Transcript:
Speaker 2
It seems like a really key phenomenon here is that the more specific the question, the more agreement you haveand it's superinteresting that that's the case. It kind of reminds me of, i think, there's deu us in this exact moment in time seems particularly bad for people talking at a very abstract level about values. And that seems to amplify disagreements. The rise of this gues i heard wars. If you ask pep are they in general, pro gun rights or anti gun rights, then they tend to kind of split pretty 50 50. But the more specific you are about leck, should someone be able to buy this gun under this condition and carry it in this location? More concrete, specific questions tend to have much more ment then than the general values questions. Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1
Well, mostly because the feelings about specific cases feel relatable. But feelings around abstract ideologies isn't that relatable. There's much more psychological projections going on when you see a loaded tom right? But when it's very concrete, there's no, not that much room anyway, for psychological projections to to take place. And people generally converge on a shered understanding of what's actually going on when you become that specific. And also, it makes kind of trade off seem not like trade off b opportunities for innovation. Because in specific cases, there's always the possibility to resolve previous zeros intentions by introducing some new innovations to the table. But if it's, you know, time honored ideologically ats, it's very difficult to find genuine innovations that solve such feorisome tradeers. Yes, that makes sense. I guss, it is the case that we get stock and talk the most about the stuff that is the most intractable, because the other things have been solved a and we moved on.)
- Time 0:28:59
-

(highlight:: Polis is Not Designed for Decision-Making, It's About Agenda Setting
Transcript:
Speaker 2
I keep envisaging ways that this could be gamed in a sense, or at least that it could be like, non representative. And people might feel, you know, most people agree with me, but our views aren't getting getting enough weight, and feeling frustrated by that.
Speaker 1
But the point is that you have thi ti menta modo of a jury. Maybe your a citizens assembly trying to settle referendum decision, perhaps sos, a body that has decisional power. But as i mentioned, what we're crows lorsing is just a agenda. So its on the very beginning, is on the problem definition stage. So it's essentially just brain storming. When you're brain storming, statistical representative doesn't doesn't really matter. Really. What wa e want is a space where it's very difficult to shout some one down. Because the the embero de the beginning, the redico of a idea, is important for it to be resonating with a supporting infro structure, so that it can, as you grow into something that actually Is a genuine innovation out of this wicked problem configuration. So its more like an incubator stage of ideas. But when the genda are created, they're not binding on the decisional sense. Is only biding in the sense of a genda setting, like the stadeholder must talk about these things. But it's not decision. So it it relieves most of the attentions that we attribute to the final allocation of decision making power. Lagging a jury.
Speaker 2
Yer, interesting. And it sounds like the thing that you're really incentive i to do is to make a statement that people in other clusters will agree with. Some people who usually disagree with you say something t you believe that they also believe. K, and so this incentivizes you to understand their position and find common ground, basically. And why is that my incentive? Because then those shared views basically get elevated. And those are the things that potentially go forward in the process as the designed criteria does become thei desent criteria for polisy making.)
- Time 0:34:16
-

(highlight:: Polis Minimized Barriers to Policy Input from Citizens and Disincentivizes Vote Brigading
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Is there any sense in which this is a burden to citizens?
Speaker 1
W it's unlike a jury, where you have to participate rain, but it's fun like a game. As i mention, everyone probably two minutes of kindness. So taking two minutes out, i mean, you people do internest surveys all the time. If it just takes you two minutes to do a internest survey and it has a real policy making opportunity, then people generally is happy to do that and share with their friends and families. But if it means going through, you know, huge amount of threads and threats of it is less attractive to people. So a lot of thought have been given to make sure that the time feels rewardsing, and you don't have to spend a lot of time in this kind of platform. Because we cherish people's time, and we also want to make sure that they want to participate in a diverse range of these petitions or surveys or brain storming spaces, without being Overcaptured by any one particular topic, unless, of course, yo really motivated. Yes, ye.
Speaker 2
I guess i was thinking with the feeling of obligation to participate, people might feel that if they were like, i really need my views to be counted. I really need the views of people and people like me to be included. I guess, because you're not doing the head counting thing, because it's not a voting system, you don't have to worry so much, because as long as there's a few people who kind of share your Values on the platform, is a thines tat. You don't have to get involved in order to, like, make sure that you like, a dominating or, or, you know, getting a big weight in in the conversation. Which is, which is quite different.)
- Time 0:36:53
-

(highlight:: After Agenda is Set with Polis, It is Discussed Publicly By Multiple Stakeholders
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So that's the stage of the process wheretee, face to face, life streamed maltis tihote forim, where we agree to bind ourselves to talk about the polis crassers agenda and onlydes as Te agenda. So the expertse as you mentioned, in comparative legislation and things like that, is used to find good solutions within the broadly defon solution space.
Speaker 2
I say, ok, si, sothen have a live streamed discussion where you'll invite a whole lot of people who i guess e thy've been they've been selected by some one for some reason, because they Know a lot about this tomic or their representative of a group, and they've committed to talking about the shared values, or othe shared desiderata that have come out of this desired Policy properties. Is there nythin you want to say about how those events are run that has allowed them to to go better than they otherwise might?
Speaker 1
If you look at the participation office? Te web si, p o, p d t w, or the collaborative meetings webside, c n that. Pds t w, we explain our mythodologies quite clearly. De, and maybe we can do that as a kind of ril to link to, instead of me having to go through the e hol playback here. But there's a mythodology, and we've run, mor estimation, more than 100 of those either lives dreamed, or at least transcript published, recording. Stal, and there's many case studies also. So ill just refer you to ditinal ministerte t w, and the two subsides that explains this mechanism.)
- Time 0:39:09
-

(highlight:: Polis Limits Statements to 140 Characters
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Yet, just comig back to polas and people making statements and agreeing and disagreeing. What are the limits on, say, the length, like the style that they can be in? Cause you could, in theory, make a statement that is kind that is just to reply, that's like this other person, tad x. And i think that's wrong because of ausof y. And then you cand hav got a reply button.
Speaker 1
Do you have to impose some constraintsy usually is round 100, forty characters, or 280 letters to twetlant, yes, physically it is a twit like phenomena. But if statement doesn't make any sense, people can also press puss, right? So and then itt doesn't result in a kind of move in the high dimensional space of statements and clusters, i suppose.
Speaker 2
What if i have quite a complicated argument for why i feel a particular way that doesn't fit in that number of characters? Then what do i do?
Speaker 1
But the sing is tat the explanation, the kind of supporting fogs and so on, are for the motistic hode development, the next stage. Ya, but what we're doing now is the discover stage. O cani, so the discover stage, all it matters is that i feel this way. I is is more like a good feeling than anything else. Like x dimension must be taken care of or you must avoid the wy dimension. Now, the actual data evidences are very important, but that's why we have the expert ar the motives they hold et befor it.
Speaker 2
So this is more about aggregating values and preferences, and then the next stage is more about beliefs and empirical information and so on.)
- Time 0:40:44
-

(highlight:: Using Quadratic Voting to Prevent Favoritism in National Project Selection
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So basically, the idea here is that anyone can propose an idea that requires significant investment from the government in order to solve one or more of the sustenbl de mongo challenges, Global challenges. And then, of course, there's limited bandwith governmental imput to ideas like this. So basically, while anyone can propose an idea, the idea that resinats with the most of the people eventually gets the incubation it needs to progress to the next stage. So out of say, 200 or so projects, at the end of the day, after a couple months, we select only 20 teams to go through the incubation. And finally, five teams receive the presidential trophy. So from the 200 teams, each corresponding to one or more of s d g a, two te 20, we ask any one who are simas authenticated participants, to alocate 99 points to those 200 projects. But is quadratic meaning that if you really like a project, the most you can vote is nine vots, which translate to 81 credit points. Because you don't have 100, so cant votemvo sorry. So the point here is that, because if you don't design things this way, the most likely is that just people vote, vote for their friends project with all their points, and they don't even Bother to look at the other ideas, to fints, energies and so on. So the incentive here is that, after voting for nine votes, spending 81, so you have 18 left, people are incentivised to look at least f three ther project, because nobody want to squander Their points. So they like something else, they vote four votes, 16. They still have two points left. They look at two others, and they discover, actually, these two work better then original one. So they take some of the votes back. Reibuted, seven, seven, six and six, an two, or whatever. The point here is that, on average, each person then votes for four or more, like six or seven different projects that they ef that have some sort of energy. Rt, so and then that's it. And then we tally the votes. And because the marginal cost of each vote is the same as marginal retun the impact of the vote. So we always get the broadset of 20 projects that makes everyone feel they have won a little bit. And then the project that didn't make the cut have a clear kind of senergy map where they can re locate tor talents to the one or two of the 20 projects that actually resonates the most with Stem. So again, like polis, this is a way to use mechanism design to cn reverse game, the devoting game, to make sure that people want to share the most of their expertis al finding energies Between the incubating projects.)
- Time 0:43:00
-

(highlight:: Maximizing Outcome through Broad Participation and Mechanism Design in Voting
Summary:
In a voting system where each person votes for multiple projects related to energy, the goal is to ensure a diverse selection of projects is selected and that individuals feel represented.
By leveraging mechanism design, the process encourages people to share their expertise across a broad set of projects, leading to a more balanced outcome. To evaluate success, analyzing voting behavior is crucial, as the effectiveness hinges on participants distributing their votes across various projects rather than concentrating them on a few.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
The point here is that, on average, each person then votes for four or more, like six or seven different projects that they ef that have some sort of energy. Rt, so and then that's it. And then we tally the votes. And because the marginal cost of each vote is the same as marginal retun the impact of the vote. So we always get the broadset of 20 projects that makes everyone feel they have won a little bit. And then the project that didn't make the cut have a clear kind of senergy map where they can re locate tor talents to the one or two of the 20 projects that actually resonates the most with Stem. So again, like polis, this is a way to use mechanism design to cn reverse game, the devoting game, to make sure that people want to share the most of their expertis al finding energies Between the incubating projects.
Speaker 2
Is there a way of telling whether this has led to a better outcome? In this case, maybe you can just look at it and see intuitively that the results seem seem good, seem more balanced. And also, i think mostly it's just looking at actual voting behavior.
Speaker 1
It would fail if most of the voters just vote for nine votes, discard e 18, right? Then then it becomes the same as one person, one vote with more clicks, rit nine more clicks. But no, people don't behave this way.)
- Time 0:44:53
-

(highlight:: Quadratic Funding: Blending Governmental Incentives with Crowdsourced Funding
Transcript:
Speaker 2
You mentioned quadratic funding, which is, i guess, this more elaborate extension of quadratic ti in a sens. Do you have plans to actually try to experiment with that in an application? Yes.
Speaker 1
So wal we're now doing is that we would like to implement what we could pay for success mordo, which was actual re invented a court, retroactive public good funding. But its actually the same flank. Asto pay for success, or social impact bond, many different names, is this basic idea that the government, instead of giving out a contract or subsidy, gives out a promise that a independent Board assesses whether a project have delivered some return of investment in the social sense, or inthe environmental sense. And by the end that evaloation period, the governmentis committed to pay out in the form of awards up to the work that's already done. And then the idea here is that them people can secrettise this ra, that they can take this government's whole promise and then start, kind of early, anjo stage funding, or whatever, Funding to pay for the actual investment they need to do in order to achieve that common good. And so this works really well with quadretic funding, because the panel of judges, previously is either a few people that a government trust a lot, but then maybe they're not diverse Enough, or is just crow funding, but then people with a lot more money actually speaks louder, almost by difinition in the crow funding scenario. So quadretic funding is like between a panel of a ward commede and pure funding, and choose something in the middle that has, hopefully the benefit of both.)
- Time 0:48:53
-

(highlight:: Slido, Polis, and Multi-Stakeholder Meetings for Deliberative Democracy
Summary:
Engaging in a petition by providing a signature offers a minimal chance of actively contributing to a solution.
However, collaborating in multi-stakeholder meetings allows petitioners to participate in co-creating solutions. This approach includes formal invitations to join conversations, live streaming for remote participation, and platforms like Slido and Polis for interactive idea-sharing and upvoting.
Slido offers real-time engagement, while Polis extends over several weeks.
Consequently, using these tools enhances the bandwidth and effectiveness of collaboration compared to passive textual input in a petition.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think that the band with te band with was lower than ours. I say because if you are a someone who join in a petition to profi your signature, there's zero, almost zero chance, a negligible chance, that you will actually be consulted to cocreate A solution physically. Your signature only said it's important, and that's all and only. The initiator may be a receive er foam call or something from the parlimentarian. But in the taanes design, in our collaboration meetings, all the petitioners get a formal invitation to join on the multisti holder conversation. And for people who don't have the travelling conditions, then they can also join through life streaming. And then we use another polis like tol, called slido. Actually, many people use that nowadays. Is notces for deliberative democracy. So it's like a kind of real time version. Where as polis takes three weeks or more. Slido takes maybe four hours. But during those four hours, listening into the live strain, people can pose their own ideas and also up votes, but not down votes, on people's ideas. And so augmented with slido and life streaming, and so one, there's much more bandwith to be had to the collaboration meeting as a result of the petition, as compared to simply just e Textal input to the petitionor just adding your name on it.)
- Time 0:53:09
-

Using Slido to Facilitate Real Time Deliberative Democracy (Inspired by Better Reykjavik
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Where as polis takes three weeks or more. Slido takes maybe four hours. But during those four hours, listening into the live strain, people can pose their own ideas and also up votes, but not down votes, on people's ideas. And so augmented with slido and life streaming, and so one, there's much more bandwith to be had to the collaboration meeting as a result of the petition, as compared to simply just e Textal input to the petitionor just adding your name on it. And so for caree public service, it makes a world of difference, because it's not just about clarifying the demont about innovating. So our petition platform learns a page from beterde cavic from island, that people actually can propose dheir po arguments and counter arguments on two different columns, again, Out voting and down voting, again, without reply. Butson. So basically, when we actually hold a face to face collaboration meeting, we take the kind of cream of the crop on the po endcounter ments, and then say, you know, let's collaborate. And take that as the desine criteria. Thes are the things that we must take care of, and these are the risk and dangers that we must take care to avoid, and then let's cocreate something that's better. And so then it's much more imp tats, more likely to result in something that reduce the burden and also reduce the risk for the career public servants involved.)
- Time 0:54:01
-

(highlight:: Occupy Movements Struggle with Establishing Coherent Goals Because of Radical Inclusivity
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I've already read a sufficient amount of manure castells and other occupied movements and see how they could sparow out of control, right? So there's a lot of hope, a lot of social solidarity and so on. But it's also very easy to get nowhere, because of the, essentially the invodamic y. There's just so much information on so many different accounts and so on, it feels very difficult, actually, to get listened to. And as the occupy movement continues, it becomes horter and harter to get into something of coherence because it's all inclusive. Any one can join the conversation. So the main contribution togov zero, a me included, made is to make sure that there is this consistent, kind of public logic of what what conversation actually transpired within the Occupyed parliament. And in the street near the parliament, the 20 or so ingos all contributed to kind of be more specific. So one corner talk about labor conditions after the cross strat agreement. One talk about severate security and forg and things like thatre so basically, each become a more focused conversation facilitated by professional facilitates. And our work is just to make sure that those rough consensus cross polinate more easily. Because, after we all want this demonstration to go somewhere instead of nowhere.)
- Time 0:55:43
-

(highlight:: Importance of Analogue Aspect in Deliberative Democracy
Summary:
Deliberative democracy involves a focus on people-to-people relationships, nonverbal communication, and community organization on a more physical level.
This analogue part is seen as equally important as the digital aspects like streaming. The speaker emphasizes the significance of community organization and personal connections, drawing on their own experiences in cooperative movements before the internet era and linking it to their current work in collaboration and democracy.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I mean, i'm still working on the same project. Ra democracy is a technology for swift trust and things like that. De was my research topic when i was 15, so i guess i had never awe j a itle different project. Av been working on the projects. If you had to work ot something else yet, what might it be? I think one of the ideas now in deliberative democracy, as yoave mentioned, is a more analogue part. We talk about the digto democracy life, treaming and things like that. But there's a equal analogue counterpart that focus on the kind of people to people relationship, resinating with people, nonvi communication on a more kind of almost physical sense. And so an so i think that part is equally important. Community organization and things like that is equally important. And i think it's just a kind of coincidence that was a pretty good, if i may so say so. Myself programmer, and i encountered a free sulfer movement and open source movement that gives rise to this kind of collaboration scale thing. But before i was part of the internet, so to speak, when i was 12, i actually participated, when i was eight or nine a lot in the loco co operative movements, consumer cp in particular, But also many other commun organization on the face to face scale.)
- Time 1:06:00
-

(highlight:: Assistive Intelligence & Augmented Collective Intelligence are like Fire
Transcript:
Speaker 1
But the fact that we're talking about this means that people already worry about sufficiently that pepl are working on tackling this very problem to make what i call assisteve intelligence, Or augmented collective intelligence, the predominant norm, at least intedemocratic countries like the g p. A i focusing the a i research on that particular value system. And so just like the invention of fire, of course, i may worry that fire well destroy entire cities, but if sufficient amount of fire wielders are worry about the same thing, then we teach Young people to use fire responsibly via cooking classes and sharing open recipes, as early as may be kindergarten. And then we design or builly materials with fire proof materials.)
- Time 1:12:01
-

(highlight:: Shared Reality/Understanding is a Prerequisite for Deliberative Democracy
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I mean things don't build ampathy in a more kind of non psychological projecting, but actually inter a subjective way. And the reason why is dot for people who feel very differently. Mostly that's because it's very difficult to put one in another's shoes if we don't share a significant living experience around te topic that we discuss. And so the fundamental limit of poes like technology is the shared experiences that people have when they look at the same concrete statement. Now, immersive realities, especially interactive games in immersive realities, but a cortier reality is a kind of natural solution. So basically, i arrange the immersive reality my reality, diutalize it, inviting you into my reality, maybe very briefly, just a couple of minutes. And then that does more than pages and pages of wot to convey the previously incomeasurable values and things that i value to you. So if immersive reality can do this very quickly, then the question is, how to modo that immessive reality? Does everyone need to learn blender or unity, or things like that, or or whether some sort of just free association from the brain or from some artistic medium and so on, can translate Easily to the sort of reality shaping motives. And that's why i'm excited.)
- Time 1:13:02
-

(highlight:: Improving Deliberations and Decision-Making Through Attention Management
Transcript:
Speaker 1
No. Iam not saying that it replaces any artistic medium or veto conferency mediumor things like that. Im more saying that it manages the attention more effectively, like allowing the same set of noverb or micro expressions to survive internet transmission. Because, i mean, if you have suffered a zom fatigue befor, you know exactly what i'm talking about, because it is just very difficult to sustain your attention, even in together mode Ilikein skybor tems to more than, say, three persons over the two dimension screen over, say, 20 minutes. It's just what we're not designed to do. Tha. But on the other hand, if instead of capturing all the micro expressions, which is rather difficult, we capture e the intention and then just re apply that sken to the evata, or as many Wave nets like a system are now doing, like a, youcan convey, using your verbal tonaly and things like that, such numberb expressions, even in a relatively low band with microphoner Or ear phone and things like that. Then it adds kind of difference neence laya, that we can actually stay focus and on topic, even though we're technically in different spaces. And maybe it's not about electrodes. It maybe it's about kind of detecting your finger and musclesn your arms and things like that. But maybe what what iam trying to say is that a higher aplink bandwith of the non verbal parts of our body preserved and transmitted accurately to the counterpart across the screen. I think that aids the bandwis of the non verbale part of communication, lest only the kind of verbal, rational, edited part of our statements survive internal conversations.)
- Time 1:15:09
-

(highlight:: 1min Snip
Transcript:
Speaker 2
But if they did it in the real world, then we could no longer use taxation as much to help poor people. Say, that would be like a very common objection that you might get from many peopleyet defiitetely, yet definitely.
Speaker 1
And of course, giventete resource constraints. For example, when there's no sufficient amount of musk production, i also helped in visualizing the fair distribution of ratient musks. Anrationing is sort of coercion, because o cons really, you know, by your freedom a hot order musk to sell it to people for for profit. But on the other hand, we also, instead of insisting on pition in mosk, actually produced mosqu initially. You no less than two million a day in a country of ten to three million, but we quickly ram up te medical gran moss production to more than 20 million a day, in in which case the rationing Is still there to protect the people who are less well informed or less economically fordable. But an thereis a parallel, a fashioned industry of people wearing pink masks and rainbow mask and things that express themself and so on. So physically. What i am trying to say is that, of course, when the resource is scarce, some sort of coercion apply, in e fast, self corrective and fair fashion is probably but this must not blind us to The possibility, indeed, a innovation)
- Time 1:28:21
-

(highlight:: Amplify Ideas for Social Innovation By Requiring Publication of Office Hour Transcripts
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So basically, the idea is very simple. There's multiple spaces for collaboration. For example, my own office, desocia inovation lab, is open for odd associa inovators. And personally, every wednesday, you can't book, forty minutes of my time in the office hour to talk about whatever such innovation you're working on. And my only requirement is that it's radically transparent, meaning datte transcript anda recording, or at least one of whis is published in the creative commons. And so people, of course, lobby me, but they actually just lobby te the internatra te community. Because of radical transparency, people have to make prose social arguments. It doesn't work for radical transparency if you argue for something that's bad for everyone else, wer it would look really bad. So physically, it's not me, personally that helps you out. But i amplify the social inovators ideas)
- Time 1:36:28
-

(highlight:: Taiwan's Embracement of Open Data & API-First Approach to Enable Civic Innovation
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Hat could make, for example, you know, an f a c web sit about the da vo on that domain, but they wouldn't have access to the a p ias. They woudn't have access to the data. They wouldn't have access to the data basis to actually offer any services. All they could do is just kind of have a wicky, for example. But it seems like in ti an it's a lot easier to start providing actual useful services using, using, effectively government. I t am. I understanding that correctly, that is correct.
Speaker 1
And the reason why is embrace of open data and real time open data are open api by the government services. So basically, if you don't like how the government web side portray a serten set of data, for example, the real time inventry of mosque infalmacies in early 20 20, you can always tap the Api, which up days every 30 seconds, and show your own visualisation. And if you don't like mobs, you can try a chet bot, or virtureality, voice assistance, whatever. And by de coupling the api, pot of the procurement and the user kind of interactive part of the procurement. It also may show that the front ends, because it iterates so quickly and people have so many different, diverse needs, it means that we don't need to wait for a new procurement contract. We can always say ocade to start up, specialize in chetbotlist, build a chepa portal to vaxination location and things like that.
Speaker 2
Ye, how far can you take this? Is this true across many, or most tionese government services? Or is it kind of only a minority where that's feasible?
Speaker 1
It is a majority. Definitely. If you look at a oben data index among ather jurisdictions, i think tiim placed consistently on the top for quite a few years before they decide not to do not publish that ranking any more, Because the the ti leaders already all have the main things covered, basedin things covered. But i think anything that doesn't have privacy implications or tra secret implication or national securety implications, if the government doesn't publish it as open data or api, It's now assumed as the government's shortcoming. And you can go to data w and make a request saying that, ha, this is only visible as information on as data. What wod gives. Let's make a data pipe line out of this. And very quickly, we will make a data pipeline out of this o. This is now held as a norm dot. Anything that is f o i, a requestable that doesn't have privacy and so on, impacts, must be used in a data first, api first wayye)
- Time 1:50:49
-

(highlight:: Taiwan's Embracement of Open Data & API-First Approach to Enable Civic Innovation
Summary:
Taiwan's government's embrace of open data and real-time APIs allows individuals and companies to access and leverage government data for creating innovative services.
By providing open APIs that update regularly, such as real-time inventory information, Taiwan enables customization of data interpretation and service delivery. This approach fosters rapid iteration in service development, eliminating the need for new procurement contracts.
Taiwanese government services prioritize making data accessible via APIs, unless there are privacy or security concerns, leading to a norm where non-sensitive information is expected to be available in a data-first, API-first manner, promoting transparency and innovation.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Hat could make, for example, you know, an f a c web sit about the da vo on that domain, but they wouldn't have access to the a p ias. They woudn't have access to the data. They wouldn't have access to the data basis to actually offer any services. All they could do is just kind of have a wicky, for example. But it seems like in ti an it's a lot easier to start providing actual useful services using, using, effectively government. I t am. I understanding that correctly, that is correct.
Speaker 1
And the reason why is embrace of open data and real time open data are open api by the government services. So basically, if you don't like how the government web side portray a serten set of data, for example, the real time inventry of mosque infalmacies in early 20 20, you can always tap the Api, which up days every 30 seconds, and show your own visualisation. And if you don't like mobs, you can try a chet bot, or virtureality, voice assistance, whatever. And by de coupling the api, pot of the procurement and the user kind of interactive part of the procurement. It also may show that the front ends, because it iterates so quickly and people have so many different, diverse needs, it means that we don't need to wait for a new procurement contract. We can always say ocade to start up, specialize in chetbotlist, build a chepa portal to vaxination location and things like that.
Speaker 2
Ye, how far can you take this? Is this true across many, or most tionese government services? Or is it kind of only a minority where that's feasible?
Speaker 1
It is a majority. Definitely. If you look at a oben data index among ather jurisdictions, i think tiim placed consistently on the top for quite a few years before they decide not to do not publish that ranking any more, Because the the ti leaders already all have the main things covered, basedin things covered. But i think anything that doesn't have privacy implications or tra secret implication or national securety implications, if the government doesn't publish it as open data or api, It's now assumed as the government's shortcoming. And you can go to data w and make a request saying that, ha, this is only visible as information on as data. What wod gives. Let's make a data pipe line out of this. And very quickly, we will make a data pipeline out of this o. This is now held as a norm dot. Anything that is f o i, a requestable that doesn't have privacy and so on, impacts, must be used in a data first, api first wayye)
- Time 1:50:49
-