A
new
political
philosophy
has
entered
the
chat.
“Plurality,”
the
title
and
central
subject
of
a
new
book
by
Microsoft’s
internal
economist
Glen
Weyl
and
Taiwan’s
former
(as
of
yesterday)
Minister
of
Digital
Affairs
Audrey
Tang,
is
the
idea
that
collaboration-enhancing
technologies
should
be
more
widely
embraced
both
by
the
public
and
state.
Societies
should
learn
to
cherish
a
wider
range
of
viewpoints,
the
authors
argue,
and
one
of
the
ways
to
foster
that
state
of
mind
is
through
technologies
–
perhaps
blockchains
–
that
enable
us
to
come
together.
The
book
is
essentially
a
coda
to
Tang’s
career
as
a
public
servant
as
well
as
an
outgrowth
of
Weyl’s
previous
techno-political
theory
meant
to
counter
the
malaise
in
overtaking
a
world
beset
by
wealth
inequality
and
economic
stagnation,
laid
out
in
“Radical
Markets.”
Tang,
who
stepped
into
office
to
help
advance
the
country’s
digital
developments
in
2016
(and
was
appointed
its
first
digital
minister
in
2022),
stepped
down
on
Monday
to
go
on
a
world
tour
to
speak
about
the
theory
of
Plurality
and
educate
politicians
on
Taiwan’s
groundbreaking
civic
digital
experiments.
You
may
be
asking
yourself
whether
advocating
for
a
diversity
of
opinions,
healthy
civic
debate
and
technology
doesn’t
seem
like
a
very
novel
political
strategy.
And
you’d
be
right!
But
what
sets
Plurality
apart
is
Tang’s
tangible
experience
running
large
scale,
open-source,
public,
digital
infrastructure
projects
like
the
g0v
project
(pronounced
Gov
Zero),
which
created
open
source
and
interactive
alternatives
of
Taiwan’s
government
websites,
and
VTaiwan,
which
enabled
citizens
to
petition
for
policies.
In
other
words,
there
is
praxis
to
Tang
and
Weyl’s
theory
–
a
goal
in
action.
Weyl
has
described
Plurality
as
something
similar
to
environmentalism;
it
only
works
if
you
do
it.
The
dream
is
to
get
the
whole
world
on-boarded
onto
this
system,
advancing
democracy
and
open-source
technological
innovation
simultaneously.
The
book
itself
is
a
working
example
of
Plurality:
written
collaboratively
with
a
number
of
co-authors,
the
book
is
freely
available
to
all
(here)
and
something
they
hope
to
add
to
over
time.
“Our
project
will
be
carried
out
in
conjunction
with
Plurality
research
and
implementation,”
Tang
and
Weyl
write
in
an
announcement
post.
“We
don’t
just
need
hackers
and
writers,
we
need
designers,
storytellers,
marketers
and
distributors
to
work
with
us.
Under
no
circumstances
will
Glen
and
Audrey
receive
any
compensation
or
royalties
for
writing
this
book,
in
keeping
with
the
legal
code
that
accompanies
their
positions;
revenue
will
only
be
used
to
support
the
community
and
philanthropic
mission
we
hope
to
build.”
CoinDesk
caught
up
with
Tang
(who
by
all
accounts
has
had
a
fascinating
life,
which
was
detailed
yesterday
in
a
TIME
profile
and
will
soon
be
the
subject
of
a
documentary)
to
discuss
the
writing
of
the
book,
how
to
convince
governments
to
embrace
progressive
technology
and
what
it
means
to
be
a
“good
enough
ancestor.”
This
interview
has
been
edited
for
length
and
clarity.
To
start
off
with
an
easy
one:
What
was
it
like
writing
a
book
with
Glen
Weyl?
So
the
book
actually
started
two
years
ago
even
before
I
was
appointed
as
minister
of
digital
affairs.
So
in
a
sense,
it
grew
with
the
ministry.
As
you
understand,
our
ministry
got
started
when
the
unprovoked
war
on
Kyiv
happened,
when
people
suddenly
started
to
care
about
resilience.
And
so
a
lot
of
the
ideas
from
the
book,
like
IPFS,
decentralization
and
Web3
for
redundancy,
suddenly
became
a
topic
of
focus
when
our
ministry
first
started
a
year
and
a
half
ago.
I
think
it’s
both
very
practical
that
those
cutting
edge
ideas
get
used
in
Taiwan,
and
also
highly
enjoyable
in
the
sense
that
people
care
about
Taiwan.
But
they
may
not
know
how
a
civic
tech
ecosystem
functions
or
how
the
state
can
fund
a
lot
of
decentralized
technology
as
public
infrastructure
in
the
same
way
it
builds
highways
and
bridges.
There
was
a
lot
of
mutual
learning.
I
would
also
point
out
that
as
a
result
of
co-writing
this
book,
both
Vitalik
Buterin
and
Glen
have
become
residents
of
Taiwan.
They
got
gold
cards,
which
we
hand
out
for
anyone
who
contributes
for
8
years
or
more
to
open
source
or
any
of
the
internet
commons.
For
people
who
would
hear
the
gist
of
the
book
and
assume
that
it’s
another
form
of
technical
libertarianism,
could
you
describe
exactly
what
you
mean
by
“plurality?”
Sure,
so
plurality
means
collaborative
diversity,
right?
It
means
technology
that
fosters
diversity.
So
in
that
sense,
it
is
a
little
bit
similar
to
the
idea
of
decentralization
where
everybody
can
host
their
own
systems.
But
there’s
another
dimension
of
effective
collaboration
and
coordination,
which
we
loosely
refer
to
as
democracy
but
it’s
not
about
just
voting.
It
is
about
a
continuous
form
of
democracy
that
allows,
for
example,
AI
facilitated
deliberation
between
people
holding
very
conflicting
ideas
to
build
bridges
for
people
who
were
originally
ideologically
opposed.
I
would
say
this
form
of
collaboration
sounds
a
little
bit
technocratic,
that
diversity
sounds
a
little
bit
libertarian,
but
it
is
a
unique
combination
of
the
two
–
collaborative
diversity
–
that
sets
plurality
apart.
So
I
liked
the
book.
It
was
a
love
letter
to
Taiwan
in
some
sense,
but
how
would
you
best
persuade
governments
outside
of
Taiwan
to
adopt
these
democratic
experimentations?
Well,
first
of
all,
I
think
we
learn
from
a
lot
of
other
governments
as
well.
Our
reputation
system
came
from
Reykjavik,
Iceland.
Our
participatory
budget
system
came
from
Barcelona.
And
of
course,
we
were
inspired
by
the
internet
consultation
in
Brazil
from
more
than
10
years
ago.
And
so
there’s
a
long
tradition
of
working
with
internet
technologies,
not
for
the
government
to
govern
the
internet,
but
using
internet
technologies
to
improve
the
governance
of
government
itself.
What
Taiwan
can
contribute
here
is
that
we
have
advanced
some
of
the
more,
I
would
say,
resilient
defenses
against
polarization
attacks,
you
know,
information
manipulation
attacks,
deep
fakes,
transnational
fraud
and
pandemic
misinformation
–
you
name
it.
For
example,
we’ve
managed
to
overcome
the
polarization
tied
to
our
January
election,
without
people
hating
each
other.
That’s
partly
thanks
to
participatory
fact
checking,
where
we
set
up
a
community
with
1000s
of
contributors
and
music
to
spread
the
idea
of
super
fact
checking.
So
as
you
can
see,
in
any
jurisdiction
where
there
are
similar
threats
or
a
similar
urgency
for
clarity,
these
ideas
take
hold
and
the
grassroots
community
just
grows
from
there.
Just
off
of
the
idea
of
crowdsourcing
truth.
X
has
a
version
of
it.
Do
you
think
these
different
programs
are
better
run
by
the
government
or
by
private
corporations?
Yeah,
I
think
that
the
greatest
thing
about
Community
Notes
is
that
it
really
is
open
source.
I
remember
Vitalik
set
up
his
own
node
to
verify
what
x.com
did
was
correct.
So
because
it’s
open
source,
you
can
think
of
it
as
a
layer.
Imagine,
not
just
for
x.com,
but
for
anybody
in
the
fedi-verse
where
you
can
conceivably
you
can
build
a
Community
Notes,
including
Threads
and
other
things,
and
in
a
sense
making
this
not
just
a
jury
duty
of
sorts,
but
rather
making
it
a
alternate
entry
point
where
the
Committee
Notes
are
the
default
for
the
various
different
social
platforms.
So
to
your
question,
I
see
it
working
as
a
bridging
system
across
different
social
networks
and
that
the
state
should
fund
it,
of
course,
but
not
control
it.
This
is
in
a
sense
like
funding
running
water
for
civil
discourse,
because
if
there
is
no
such
layer,
then
polarization
is
the
default
for
the
current
generation
of
the
social
web.
Responding
to
some
of
the
like
blockchain
critics,
how
can
the
blockchain
world
help
devise
protocols
that
look
more
plural
pluralistic
rather
than
plutocratic?
I
think
a
healthy
ecosystem
in
the
blockchain
world
is
one
that
is
not
dominated
by
a
single
implementation,
right?
So
of
course
Ethereum
itself
has
multiple
implementations
and
also
on
different
layer
2
solutions.
I
have
in
mind,
for
example,
the
Polkadot
system,
which
is
a
distinct
ecosystem,
building
on
a
kind
of
common
meta-protocol.
We
need
to
get
people
to
better
understand
that
crypto
really
follows
a
toolkit
approach,
like
the
fact
that
you
can
reuse
most
of
the
governance
protocols
and
enjoy
cross-chain
coordination.
I
think
this
is
something
that
we
in
traditional
politics
find
it
difficult
to
imagine.
Of
course,
there
are
things
like
gold
cards
that
give
people
residency
across
multiple
jurisdictions
that
kind
of
approximate
this,
but
it
is
still
not
as
nimble
or
mobile
as,
for
example,
Gitcoin
is
as
far
as
that
can
identify
people
across
multiple
social
presences.
These
examples
serve
as
a
very
important
proof
of
concept.
So
that
when
new
governments
start
looking
at
quadratic
voting,
project
funding
and
all
sorts
of
ways
coordination
could
be
more
thorough,
they
can
point
to
those
already
working
on-chain
examples
and
say,
“oh,
let’s
just
copy
that”
instead
of
doing
research
from
scratch.
So
the
Daily
Beast
wrote
a
piece
saying
that
some
of
Taiwan’s
civil
tech
experimentations
are
seeing
decreasing
use.
Yeah,
they
decreased
during
the
pandemic.
That
is
true.
I
wanted
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
respond
because
I
don’t
think
I
saw
a
quote
from
you.
I
think
it’s
up
to
the
vTaiwan
community
to
explain
what
happened
during
the
pandemic
and
what
happened
after.
If
you
want
a
quote,
actually,
because
the
Plurality
book
is
co-written
with
them,
you
can
just
read
their
account
Chapter
2-2,
has
a
very
comprehensive
response,
saying
that,
and
I
quote,
“As
a
decentralized,
citizen-led
community,
vTaiwan
is
also
a
living
organism
that
naturally
evolves
and
adapts
as
citizen
volunteers
participate
in
various
ways.
The
community’s
engagement
experienced
a
downturn
following
the
onset
of
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
which
interrupted
face-to-face
meetings
and
led
to
decreased
participation.
The
platform
faced
challenges
due
to
the
intensive
volunteering
effort
required,
the
absence
of
mandates
for
governmental
responses,
and
its
somewhat
narrow
focus.
In
response
to
these
challenges,
vTaiwan’s
community
has
sought
to
find
a
new
role
between
the
public
and
the
government
and
extend
its
outreach
beyond
the
realm
of
Taiwanese
regulation
in
recent
years.
A
significant
effort
to
revitalize
vTaiwan
was
its
collaboration
with
OpenAI’s
Democratic
Input
to
AI
project
in
2023.
Through
partnerships
with
Chatham
House
and
the
organization
of
several
physical
and
online
deliberative
events
centered
on
the
topic
of
AI
ethics
and
localization,
vTaiwan
successfully
integrated
local
perspectives
into
the
global
discourse
on
AI
and
technology
governance.”
Then
the
next
paragraphs
say
that
today
a
second,
related
platform,
Join,
averages
about
more
than
11,000
unique
daily
visitors.
So
while
the
state
e-petition
platform
enjoyed
slightly
increasing
participation
during
the
pandemic
because
of
the
ease
of
online
voting,
VTaiwan’s
reliance
on
weekly
face
to
face
meetups
did
experience
that
downturn,
but
now
they’re
on
a
bounce
back.
So
in
a
sense,
you’re
saying
there
was
a
natural
evolution
of
people
moving
to
different
platforms,
like
the
shift
from
MySpace
to
Facebook?
I
think
the
good
thing
about
g0z
[pronounced
Gov-Zero]
is
that
every
project
is
by
definition
open
source
and
part
of
Creative
Commons.
And
so
for
new
generations
who
want
to
revitalize
VTaiwan,
they
do
not
have
to
start
from
scratch.
Of
course,
the
VTaiwan
community
today
is
not
the
same
community
at
launch
in
2014.
All
of
us
who
were
part
of
the
original
thing
are
still
around,
but
the
people
who
are
running
it
are
like
10
years
younger
than
us
now.
And
so,
to
your
question,
I
think
it
is
not
just
a
migration
thing.
It
is
also
how
each
generation
thinks
about
experimentation.
The
original
use
of
VTaiwan’s
Polis
was
considered
very
cutting
edge
in
2015
because
it
was
very
new.
But
now,
the
government
regularly
uses
the
Join
platform,
which
has
Polis
embedded
in
it,
so
it’s
a
sign
that
Polis
is
no
longer
R&D
–
public
servants
feel
comfortable
using
it.
The
state’s
role
is
to
maintain
the
mature
open
source
products
and
make
sure
it’s
part
of
the
public
civic
infrastructure.
Are
you
familiar
with
Nathan
Schneider?
I
read
his
tweets.
So
he
recently
wrote
a
book
about
digital
democracy,
and
has
since
begun
researching
what
would
happen
if
digital
democracy
was
basically
everywhere
online.
Like,
if
you
had
to
vote
on
any
number
of
decisions,
wouldn’t
that
be
a
nightmare?
You
refer
to
“Governable
Spaces?”
We
had
some
conversations,
not
with
Nathan,
but
with
people
doing
similar
research.
I
think
it
all
depends
on
how
top
down
it
is.
For
example,
the
Zero
Summit
(which
is
happening
today
and
tomorrow)
almost
always
uses
Slido,
the
very
thin
way
to
crowdsource
Q&As.
But
Slido
was
also
acquired
by
Webex
to
be
just
one
feature
during
the
video
chats.
Democratic
tech
becomes
a
very
thin
layer
like
that.
See
also:
‘We’ve
Seen
Breakdowns
of
Trust’:
Nathan
Schneider
Discusses
His
New
Book
‘Governable
Spaces’
People
being
in
the
same
Discord
workspace
is
also
this
sort
of
governable
space
as
part
of
their
toolkit;
they
don’t
even
need
to
think
about
it
as
digital
democracy.
But
it
actually
increases
the
throughput
of
coordination
and
makes
collaboration
easier
and
in
that
setting.
I
don’t
think
it’s
particularly
dystopian,
because
it’s
literally
just
increasing
the
bandwidth
and
reducing
latency
of
governance.
We
grow
from
that,
like
from
four
people
to
400
people
to
40,000
people
and
so
on.
I
have
a
few
slightly
personal
questions,
you
don’t
have
to
answer
them.
Are
you
an
extropian?
How
would
you
define
it?
Like
someone
who
wants
to
live
indefinitely?
Yeah,
I
guess
so.
Well,
I
have
a
very
different
relationship
with
longevity.
I
was
born
with
a
heart
condition
that
for
the
first
12
years
of
my
life,
whenever
I
went
to
sleep
it
was
a
50/50
chance
that
I
would
survive.
I
needed
to
get
the
surgery
for
the
condition
when
I
was
12.
So
I’m
good
now,
but
it
shaped
my
personality.
I
always
have
this
compulsion
to
publish
before
I
perish
every
night.
So
I
publish
everything.
So
in
a
sense,
I
think
it’s
also
extropian.
Do
you
think
Taiwan
should
raise
taxes?
I
mean,
our
taxes
are
so
low
by
OECD
standards.
But
we’re
doing
pretty
good
with
a
very
low
tax
rate.
Last
year,
we
even
gave
everyone
$100,
including
young
people,
because
we
got
more
taxes
than
we
anticipated
from
TSMC
and
so
on.
How
long
do
you
intend
to
stay
in
government
office?
So
I’m
stepping
out
on
May
20.
What
are
you
doing
next?
I’m
on
a
book
tour.
I’m
going
to
go
to
Madrid
and
Paris
for
VivaTech.
And
I
think
to
Croatia,
for
BlockSplit
and
also
to
Helsinki,
Berlin
–
I’m
missing
a
few.
So
many
different
countries
in
a
span
of
three
to
four
weeks
right
after
May
20.
Do
you
hold
cryptocurrencies?
I
did,
back
in
2010-11
I
consulted
for
one
bitcoin
per
hour.
But
when
I
became
a
public
servant
I
quite
explicitly
got
out.
My
consultation
rates
when
I
started,
bitcoin
was
something
like
100
U.S.
dollars
and
then
it
grew
to
$300
or
$400
by
this
time
I
entered
the
cabinet
in
2016.
So
it
was
still
not
very
significant.
Obviously,
you
are
a
strong
advocate
for
open
source
everything.
Do
you
think
the
same
arguments
hold
true
in
the
world
of
AI?
Yeah,
I
mean,
my
mainframes
started
as
computationally
expensive.
Open
source
still
managed
to
thrive.
But
of
course,
during
those
times
of
the
Free
Software
movement,
open
source
started
to
thrive
when
personal
computers
started
to
get
connected
to
the
internet
circa
1997.
What
I’m
trying
to
get
at
is
that
I
think
the
fundamental
freedoms,
like
the
freedom
to
use
software
for
any
purpose,
is
doubly
true
when
it
comes
to
machine
learning
and
machine
training
models.
If
a
foundation
model
cannot
be
governed
by
the
people
who
use
it,
then
essentially
it’s
the
people
who
train
those
foundation
models,
determining
its
worldview,
perspectives
and
epistemic
norms
of
the
people
using
the
model.
So
for
example,
in
Taiwan,
there
is
the
National
Science
and
Technology
Council,
which
aligns
the
Lama3
models
using
local
crowdsourced
–
what
we
call
the
alignment
assembly,
which
is
when
people’s
general
preferences
determine
how
it
should
behave
–
like
with
regards
to
the
use
of
imaging
celebrities
in
advertisements.
It
is
a
mini
public
microcosm
of
our
population
to
determine
the
guide
rails
affected
by
it.
The
ability
to
steer
AI
is
very
important.
And
that
openness
to
steering
is
the
key
whether
you
call
it
open
source,
or
open
weights
or
open
access.
Do
you
think
the
models
will
establish
AGI?
It
only
makes
sense
if
you’re
like
placing
robots
in
place
of
people,
because
that’s
that’s
what
AGI
is
–
it
can
do
what
people
can
do.
But
in
the
actual
way
we’re
using
AI
nowadays,
it’s
more
like
assistive
intelligence.
The
email
replying
modem
doesn’t
send
the
email
on
my
behalf,
right?
It
just
drafts
emails
on
my
behalf,
using
my
style.
All
these
uses
increase
our
collective
intelligence.
And
if
the
goal
is
plurality,
then
AGI
is
more
like
a
distraction.
Do
you
think
Taiwan
will
remain
a
democracy
in
the
next
decade,
50
years
or
century?
Of
course,
of
course.
Depending
on
the
ranking,
we’re
either
the
most
democratic
country
in
all
of
Asia
or
the
second:
sometimes
to
Japan,
sometimes
to
New
Zealand.
But
we’re
certainly
among
the
top
and
in
terms
of
internet
freedom.
I
think
it
is
this
combination
that
is
very
rare,
because
many
jurisdictions
think
to
allow
for
this
amount
of
internet
freedom,
it
will
surely
lead
to
polarization
and
decline
of
democracy.
But
Taiwan
is
living
proof
that
you
can
have
maximal
internet
and
also
a
functional
democracy
without
polarization.
I
really
liked
your
phrase
“humor
over
rumor.”
When
is
it
appropriate
to
apply
a
strategy
like
that?
I
think
some
sort
of
humor,
at
least
on
a
personal
level,
is
always
good.
When
I
look
at
very
trollish,
toxic
text,
I
automatically
focus
on
the
like
three
words
out
of
3,000
that
can
be
construed
as
funny
or
informative.
Through
this
lens,
we
can
enjoy
interacting
with
the
parts
that’s
actually
enjoyable.
I
often
find
that
just
making
fun
of
oneself
can
be
disarming.
If
you
go
to
my
Flickr,
there’s
this
whole
album
of
me
making
memes
like
this,
so
whenever
there’s
some
controversy
at
the
ministry
I
can
quickly
respond
with
a
mimetic
picture
as
a
very
funny
rebuttal.
We
call
it
pre-bunk.
That
is
that
you
don’t
need
to
wait
for
information
manipulation,
polarization
or
conspiracy
theories
–
you
can
make
a
funny
scoreboard
of
people’s
preferences
of
AstraZeneca
versus
BNP
versus
Maderna
if
there’s
controversy
over
the
COVID
vaccine.
So
you
have
a
knack
for
a
turn
of
phrase.
Is
there
one
expression
that
you
choose
to
live
by?
Oh,
yeah,
I
would
like
to
be
a
good
enough
ancestor.
Oh,
that’s
a
good
one.
I
think
good
enough
means
that
we
don’t
over-design
and
foreclose
the
possibility
of
future
generations.
They’re
going
to
be
much
more
creative,
but
it
is
our
job
to
make
sure
that
they
have
a
larger
canvas
when
they
are
born
into
the
world
compared
to
when
I
was
born
into
the
world.
