# Audrey Tang x Glen Weyl transcript/translation

License: CC0 No copyright reserved.

## Video

https://www.dropbox.com/s/04rmu7fe6cfy2d7/2022-10-10%20Plurality.mp4?dl=0

{%youtube JnZQCHh1hW8 %}

## Transcript

### Audrey Tang:
Good local time, everyone.

This is not an episode of "Innovative Minds with Audrey Tang", although the format is somewhat like it. We have Glen Weyl, my co-author of the Plurality.net book for Collaborative Diversity and Technology for Democracy.

Welcome, Glen.

### Glen Weyl:
Hi, Audrey.

It's so great. It's always an honor and a pleasure to speak with you.

### Audrey Tang:
In the Innovative Minds video podcast, in the very beginning we toyed with the idea of having the audience posting Slido questions.

But because it was a studio format, that never came to be.

So I'm really happy that for this particular convening, we actually have Slido-driven questions. So we'll talk for roughly half an hour and we already have five questions voted by the people, right?

So, we'll answer them in order and Glen will probably take

the first question, but we'll do a lot of back and forth. Without further ado, let's recognize "mashbean" 豆泥 Yen-Lin's question, which goes like this.

So Glen wrote — back in February — this article called Political Ideologies for the 21st Century.

The Gathering Storm expansion pack for the Civilization VI video game, inspired the article, with emerging technologies as well as the polities that those technologies enabled.

In the article, Glen mentioned Corporate Libertarianism, which is more closely linked to the capitalism-fueled blockchain technology ideology. But also within the web3 space there's also Digital Democracy, that many DAOs, including of course, many people in Taiwan who practice digital democracy on top of web3.

So it looks like to mashbean that there's some competition, but there's also some collaboration going on here.

So, how do you feel about the co-opetition between the two ideologies in the web3 space?

### Glen Weyl:
So I think, Audrey, you and I have always been big believers in multi-sectoral collaboration.

I think that's been central to many of the things that you've accomplished in Taiwan.

And I think, unfortunately, there's been a period of time since the 1970s. where technology has increasingly been driven exclusively by the private sector, with the public sector and the social sector more in a defensive or protective role rather than a shaping and engaging role.

And I think it shouldn't be very surprising that if you leave things entirely in that mode, technologies have a tendency to reinforce the systems in which they're created.

The private sector has a capitalist logic, and it's therefore not surprising that we would see developing within a purely private mode, this sort of extreme capitalist version.

But on the other hand, that's come to conflict with a number of social values: environmental sustainability, legality, concerns about risk and hyper-financialization, et cetera.

And I think it's my view that maybe most of the activity, or at least most of the money in the web3 space has gone in this hyper-capitalist direction, and that's unfortunate. But that if the public and social sectors engage, there will very quickly be pressure against those outcome.

That pressure will tend to select in favor of the minority of things that are consistent with these other principles socially.

And so maybe in the end, all the problematic things going on aren't so important, if we're able to bring those other sectors to engage, because they will act as a filtering mechanism and a reinforcement mechanism for the important minority of things that has this more democratic flavor.

### Audrey Tang:
Okay, so you talked about the competition part, right?

There's the private sector logic as well as the public and social sectors — currently in the minority, but consistent reuse of the technology. What about cooperation?

Are there particular modes that you see that currently the private sector, like rich individuals or companies and so on, are nevertheless interested, enticed, by the potentials of the social and public sector use of web3?

### Glen Weyl:
Yes, absolutely.

I think one of the most important things to recognize is as problematic as certain elements of the hyper capitalist DeFi world are, they are also critical to so much of the possibilities that have opened up. We would not be having the social conversation that we're having even about the incredible things that are happening in Taiwan.

I believe if there were a broader web3 conversation that was lifting up interest in this area. Conversely, within — I believe strongly that while we've, you know, labeled our book "Technology for Cooperative Diversity and Democracy", that if the tools that we are building aren't capable of making business organizations more productive, aren't capable of making personal relationships richer, aren't capable of making religious institutions, both more inclusive, but also with a stronger foundation and more durable in the digital age, then we will have failed.

Because anything that is powerful at strengthening democracy should also be powerful at strengthening the way that people work together productively and the way that they worship, and so forth.

So, ultimately, I think most of the applications of the things we're developing, if they're successful, will probably end up in the private sector.

### Audrey Tang:
Yeah.

So in the past 10 years in the g0v hackathons, what I've noticed is that eventually the largest private sector people in Taiwan — MediaTek, Acer, HTC — they send people to g0v hackathons.

They even have g0v hackathon affiliate clubs and events and so on within their large companies, precisely because they see this as kind of collaborative research, to the latest and greatest in public sector entrepreneurship, so to speak.

And in Taiwan, the private sector people, they do have a kind of attunement to the social sector needs. It goes beyond just ESG, it's sort of entrepreneurship, that will have like certain dedicated small units within the larger private sector, almost as connectors, to the social and public sectors, but in a kind of common mode, where people can say, "well, it's in the commons. It's on GitHub, or GitLab, and so on, and so it benefits everyone," although on the private sector's time, and that's what enabled Presidential Hackathon and so on to happen.

Is your role within Microsoft something like that?

Yeah. I mean, I think in many ways that's the role I've served, but I would also say that I think it goes even deeper into the private sector than that.

Think about GitHub, GitHub's business model.

GitHub is known as a provider of platforms for open source software but their business model is all based on internal, internally open source projects within companies

And I think that model goes for all the things that we do.

So, you know, quadratic funding has primarily been used in open and public way to support open source software, but there are public goods within Microsoft.

We have many different divisions, and each has their own profit and loss interest.

And it's hard to get them all to produce common infrastructure for the company.

And that problem is really the same, internally, as the problem open source software faces in the world.

And so I ultimately believe that in a really pluralist world, these tools will be just as useful in a completely open public way as they will within particular nation states, within particular corporations, et cetera.

And that there will be a whole world ecosystem that they create, at many different levels of cooperation.

### Audrey Tang:
Mm-hmm.

So you're envisioning something like Gitcoin Enterprise Edition?

### Glen Weyl:
Exactly.

### Audrey Tang:
That's excellent.

And that brings us nicely to the second question.

Mashbean would also like to know, there's this book, published this July by Balaji Srinivasan, called the Network State.

Within the book, one of the arguments, was that inrapreneurship or entrepreneurship — anything involving starting something new — is part of the resilience in starting, bootstrapping a community.

And a community includes, of course, sovereign nations.

So from the viewpoint of Plurality, what's your take on this kind of entrepreneurship?

Because we talk about collaborative and cooperating diversity, but what's the relationship between that idea and entrepreneurship in general?

### Glen Weyl:
Audrey, have you read the book?

### Audrey Tang:
A little bit. Skimmed the book.

### Glen Weyl:
Yeah.

I actually have a review of it that isn't published yet, but I've been thinking a lot about the book.

It's a very interesting and provocative book, and very influential in the web3 world.

Do you have any reactions first?

### Audrey Tang:
Well, I have read Vitalik's reactions and your initial reactions on Twitter.

I think it's a useful metaphor. Just like how people can think about governance without a tied locality, a territory; That's how we talk about internet governance. The thing with internet governance is that it's kind of abstract. It's difficult to get people all excited about the .tw or in domains and things like that.

But the Network State provides a kind of certain affinity-based -- so definitely more tangible, I guess, than domain names. And you can also do internet governance-like governance on it.

So I think it has this popularizing, aspect to it, much as you just said that the DeFi world has a kind of popularizing idea when it comes to the scale of diversity and the scale of potential cooperation.

### Glen Weyl:
Yeah.

There's this thinker called John Dewey, who very much influenced my thought. And he has a book in 1927 called "The Public and its Problems."

In that book he argues that new technologies create new patterns of association, both just because of sort of social dynamics, who can communicate with whom and associate with whom, but also because embed us in new patterns of what economists would call externalities or what he would just call interactions.

Our actions come to affect each other in different ways, and therefore the necessary governance structures, change with the changes in technology.

Yet, the borders of nation state don't, or at least don't much.

Even the subnational localities don't change very much over time.

And so he argues that what we need is the constant emergent of what, what he calls new publics, which will be these groups of people that will come to govern themselves in relationship to this set of interactions that they have.

He describes the figure of what he calls an expert, which kind of corresponds to what Balaji calls a founder, but the expert is a bit different.

And, and I think you and I have aimed, I don't know if I've talked to you about this, but you and I have aimed, I think to build this book project around this Deweyan notion of an expert, because Dewey's concept of an expert is not a king or ruler.

It's a convener. It's a convener of a new polity.

So the crucial role of the expert is to let a polity see itself, see the interactions that it's having, and therefore come into a new form of democratic governance that didn't exist before because that set of people didn't recognize the interactions they were having with each other.

And that's, I think, very much modeled in the way we're thinking about the book.

As you know, we're gonna put out some material that hopefully will help a community see itself in that material. But then, they will become the maintainers, and it will become democratically accountable to those people who connected with it.

And I think that the Internet was originally imagined by people like J.C.R. Licklider, as a foundation for that kind of what I would call a network society where people are part of multiple intersecting emergent publics. Now, he only did it for communication protocol, so it was very first step.

But I think what we're all working towards is creating that kind of a network society, not a world where everyone choose their favorite little statelet and is completely committed to that.

But where everyone participates in many of these emergent democratic polities that are constantly emerging and shifting and I think that that is the right vision of how we need to imagine the way in which networks will transform governments.

### Audrey Tang:
Yeah.

As you talk about the expert versus the founder, I'm reminded of Steve Chen, co-founder of YouTube, in my video podcast, who talked about how the "founder" is almost always a retroactively coined myth.

Like when YouTube was first founded and he had many co-founders with experiences in PayPal and so on It's almost never about a personal hero. It's almost never about this one insight that drives the entire market segments. It is more or less, about a bunch of people who vibes similarly, who builds social connections starting from their very different, diverse communities, and try and fail a few times, and then finally finding a product- or service-market fit.

And then of course, the myth-making begins, and then we retroactively build a founder myth.

And what I'm hearing from you seems to say that it's this process. There's more facilitating, reflective process, that we're focusing on.

And instead of a particular branding or a particular founder, we want to enable everyone to have this kind of network-making power.

Am I reading you correctly?

### Glen Weyl:
Yeah.

I think that's quite related to some of the discussions we've had about artificial intelligence, because I think it's in the nature of human myth-making and narrative discourse.

to need to invest that communal feeling in something that's imagined to be an agent. A single agent, you know?

### Audrey Tang:
Yep.

### Glen Weyl:
So we call these collective statistical models that we create "artificial intelligences" and we call the community that creates a new platform a "founder", because we want to hear the story of, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, or the story of the Homeric heroes.

Right? Like, rather than tell the history of Greece, we tell the Homeric myth.

### Audrey Tang:
Right.

### Glen Weyl:
And so it's a very human way to encapsulate a collective effort to, in the story of a heroic individual.

### Audrey Tang:
Mm-hmm.

### That's very interesting because the next question is:
"Can you list some examples how designer storytellers, marketers, and publishers might be able to help?"

And I interpreted that as weaving new form of narratives, that. shows different possibilities about the emerging technologies that is somewhat decoupled from this individualistic mythic heroes.

### Glen Weyl:
Yeah.

So, I think that there are all kinds of ways that people can help with the book project. Publishers are one thing we've had a really interesting struggle interacting with, because they're very tied to a very specific economic model, even if, it's not necessarily more lucrative.

So we, we can use help from publishers who want to be creative and innovate on possibilities all over the world.

But I think one of my favorite roles that I hope people can play, is what I would call translators, but not just translators in the language sense, what I would call subcultural translators.

So I'd love a version of the book, a fork that is for deeply Christian people, that uses scriptural references and that tells the story of what we're trying to tell in the language of the Christian tradition, or in the language of the Daoist tradition or in the language of Buddhist or Animist traditions, et cetera.

I'd love versions that are highly technical for computer scientists and economists that translate our words into symbols

And I'd love versions that are purely visual, or almost purely visual, a comic book or something like that.

It's in that plurality of different ways of speaking that I think the book can reach its greatest potential.

Of course, I'd love some of that to feedback into the original root but there's only so much that we're going to be capable of cohering.

And I hope there will be parts that cohere and then there will be many parts that don't cohere and that try to tell the same thing differently.

### Audrey Tang:
Yeah, indeed.

You may or may not know, we've just launched this event called Ideathon, where we ask everyone to imagine how future is like in 2040. We call it #2040Plurality.

The top 10 ideas that corresponds to cooperative diversity will, in addition to of course, having Soulbound Tokens issued, get some expert guidance into making these visions immersive experiences. I truly believe that one of the ways to go beyond, the individualistic heroic myth is to simply situate someone in a future.

I was inspired by science fictions a lot, as you know, and one of the interesting examples I encountered was "A Tale of Two Futures" telling about a more dystopic and a more utopic future using near future technology by Pistono of the Italian five star movement.

So it's a kind of political statement, a political philosophy packaged as science fiction.

And I was like, yeah, a lot of what's in the book about empathy-building machines and so on, could really work if it's delivered in an immersive form.

So I truly believe in multimodal storytelling, and I hope that the plurality book can benefit from those futures.

### Glen Weyl:
That's fascinating.

There's a... the chair of our board at RadicalxChange, Christopher Thomas, is putting on an exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Art in London, called Another World, where he's displaying some of these immersive future possibilities. Hopefully there could be some kind of a collaboration to help bring some of the insights from your ideathon to that experience in London and in Berlin.

### Audrey Tang:
That would be excellent.

Continuing into the next question which reads, "how might the Taiwanese project mentioned in the article", in the book announcement — because many project leaders are within the audience now — so "how can they play a more active role in leading this global movement?"

What do you think?

### Glen Weyl:
I profoundly believe and have now dedicated a lot of my life to the proposition that the Taiwanese experience is a uniquely important one for the world.

It's uniquely important for substative reasons, because so much has been accomplished and it's such a hopeful example, but it's also uniquely important for symbolic reasons, which is that, as has been widely reported, there are great divisions within Western societies today, within many liberal democratic societies, and those divisions are undermining the capacity of the societies to effectually act on this area.

But, and of course the technologies that have been developed in Taiwan can be a powerful part of addressing that problem. But even more than that, the mythos of Taiwan, I believe can be an important driving force in addressing them, because the stories unite people across many of the standard divides in liberal democracies.

The challenges of technology and the challenges of authoritarianism are two of the few things people widely are concerned about in liberal democracies. I believe that one reason Taiwan has succeeded so much is the presence of those challenges that have been so acute in Taiwan.

And if it can act as that sort of narrative focus, that maybe even more than it deserves, but just as a narrative, brings home to people the challenges that they need to face up to.

I believe it can bring people together around a common purpose. I think to some extent Ukraine has done that, but Ukraine has done it in a way that is focused on a particular territorial dispute rather than primarily on a set of technological tools that might be scalable to address problems in other countries.

So I believe the symbolism of Taiwan is incredibly important.

So, to circle back to the question, I hope that folks in Taiwan will keep doing their good work, but I also hope that we can find more and more platforms for bringing in a narratively compelling way, that story to people all around the world and making them feel a pop cultural presence, just as other pop cultural elements have come from Taiwan to the rest of the world, in the common discourse in those countries.

### Audrey Tang:
Yeah, indeed.

I remember in the past couple years, when I talk about how we fought off the pandemic without a single day of lockdown and the infodemic — the disinformation crisis — without any administrative takedowns, there's this kind of sense of disbelief from people from western liberal democracies, listening to the stories.

When I was speaking to the UK New Local conference, the general reaction was that it is too good to be true and then is too different from the UK. I was like, yeah, if you don't want to call it the Taiwan model, call it the New Zealand model because New Zealand played the same playbook to even better effect, I would argue, than Taiwan.

But yeah, those existential proofs, that polarization is not inevitable, that social media doesn't always lead to antisocial media behaviors, that we can decouple proprietary platforms from social networks in general and so on.

These are the points I believe that you pointed out repeatedly, that Taiwanese people kind of take for granted, but most of the world doesn't, and that's the voices we need to amplify.

### Glen Weyl:
I mean, I think frankly there is quite a bit of implicit racism, not in the aggressive or anti form, but just in the stereotyping form, there's this view among people in Western countries who are mostly of Caucasian origin, that Asian people are all ethnically the same, and that they all get along with each other.

And I think it's important to tell the story of the diversity in Taiwan, of the indigenous communities, of the divisions between those who came earlier to the island and those who came with the nationalists, and how those line up with political divisions and how that mirrors the ethno-political divisions that exist in the United States, and just understand that it is not as if Taiwan is just an island of inherently cooperative, homogeneous robots or something like that, you know what I mean?

### Audrey Tang:
Confucian, worshipping robots or something...

"Confucius robots". I like that.

Yeah right.

So truth to be told, I think there are more folk Taoists in Taiwan than Confucius believers.

But anyway, the point I think which you made very succinctly is that Taiwan is not just a story of cooperation, but also a story of diversity.

And only when the diversity parts are well understood by the Western counterparts, can we truly... I wouldn't say influence, but at least build a bridge into the collective consciousness of the modern dialogue around the possibility of overcoming our differences by building bridges.

But bridge-building is currently not as lucrative as the top talents who get paid on the more authoritarian or the autonomous engines sort of AI or, for that matter, the more speculative parts of crypto. So how much does money play a role in all these, in especially retaining top talents?

What do you think?

### Glen Weyl:
First of all, there are important ways we have to imagine for changing the even money based incentive structures. So you can imagine social medias, social media companies having a very different business model.

And a lot of people suggest that the right alternative business model is selling subscriptions.

But I actually don't think that would make things all that much better.

I actually think the right business model for social media is selling to a range of collective organizations, but not selling them advertising spots, selling them quality social network.

Because individuals are not those who are interested in paying for a functional, social network, because individuals as individuals are interested in their node, they're not interested in the performance of the overall network.

Organizations are interested in the performance of the network, and in fact, Microsoft sells software to organizations, mostly sell to business organizations, somewhat to governments, but you can imagine replacing advertisements with churches and local governments, national governments, et cetera, paying for algorithms that bridge the differences within those sub-graphs.

In fact, the amount that governments are already devoting to all kinds of cultural programming, all kinds of live et cetera, you put all that together, that could easily pay for the revenue of these companies.

So at a macro level, you could create incentive structures where the product became a healthy, functioning social fabric, paid for by all sorts of people who are part of the social fabric rather than a social fabric that engages people to purchase products.

So I think even the money based incentives can change, but it's also important to recognize that money is only one of many incentives that everyone responds to, and people seek money not for its own sake, because there's money that doesn't — people talk about money is giving directly to people — but it's not true.

Money doesn't actually buy you anything. Money buys you investments in family, investments in community, investments in other things.

So if we can directly provide people the ability to achieve those goals that they have, which are usually collective goals of some form, even if it's just at the family level or just at the local community level, then that's just as strong inducement for people to participate as is money.

Money is a solvent of sorts, but one thing it can dissolve is some of those bonds, which are the things that we're trying to purchase with the money in the first place.

So I believe that, speaking to the issues that are near to people's heart, whether it be environmental, social justice, religious community cohesion, et cetera, is just as important as is redirecting the flows of money to be consistent with those values.

### Audrey Tang:
Yeah. So I was reminded of the RadicalxChange idea of plural money, in which that there are money that is like US dollars or fiat in general, that enable people to exit or to quit communities and move somewhere.

it provides mobility, which is good, but also there are other kinds of money that bonds people. In the small town that I used to live in, the Garden City, the Garden City tried to issue their community money, and it worked for a while.

But of course using pre-web tools, it's very difficult to scale it to the kind of communities across regions.

Ultimately, it would only work for people who almost meet day to day, and that speaks to the kind of tightly bonded community like churches and so on that you mentioned.

So it seems like one of the financial incentives could be, uh, building sort of community money.

Plural money that is programmable, and enable people to join, the causes and rest assure that they will be supported by like-minded people and communities on the endeavors that they care about, without having to prepare a lot fiat to enable them to quit any day because people at the end of day understand that they're, they're in it for any number of years.

So I think that's a quite compelling alternative to the kind of individual entrepreneurial, global nomad story.

### Glen Weyl:
And I ultimately think, money is a very simplistic solution to a very complex problem.

And I think that complex problem is that we have social relationships that are deep and important to us.

And yet, we also seek out relationships across diversity that cross over the boundaries of those intimate social relationships.

Money is a shortcut to that.

It's sort of a one shot answer, like, okay, so now let's just leapfrog to this completely universal thing that I can use with anyone in the world.

But there's other approaches to doing that. They're just kind of computationally more intensive.

So, there's friends of friends relationships, that can connect you — as we know from the literature on six degrees of separation — to just about anyone on the planet.

Now, finding that six degree of separation connection, at least historically, has been complex. It's been beyond the computational capacity of most governance systems, but, TCP/IP has shown that it can be traversed, at least for sending packets of information.

And if we learn how to use that to send packets of trust, packets of love, packets of friendship and commitment, and not just packets of information, then perhaps the role of this shortcut can be reduced, and the role of community can be enhanced with the help of assistive technology.

### Audrey Tang:
Well, that's an excellent vision.

Because there's only so many Slido questions, I believe we're done for today.

However, Glen will be online right after airing this

pre-recording and answer your more Slido questions live.

But until next time... Live long and prosper.

## Caption Translation

Contributors:

00:00:00-

## English Captions

00:00:00.750 --> 00:00:02.490
Audrey: Good local time, everyone.
各位，當地時間好。

00:00:02.760 --> 00:00:07.950
This is not an episode of "Innovative Minds
with Audrey Tang", although the format
這並不是另一集的「唐鳳佮創新」雖然感覺

00:00:07.950 --> 00:00:13.560
is somewhat like it. We have Glen Weyl,
my co-author of the
格式上有點類似。讓我們歡迎格倫・韋爾。我在

00:00:13.565 --> 00:00:19.260
Plurality.net book for Collaborative
Diversity and Technology for Democracy.
多元宇宙：數位協作與民主的科技典範的共同作者

00:00:19.290 --> 00:00:19.920
Welcome, Glen.
歡迎你來，格倫。

00:00:20.640 --> 00:00:21.480
Glen: Hi, Audrey.
嗨，唐鳳。

00:00:21.480 --> 00:00:22.170
It's so great.
真是棒極了。

00:00:22.170 --> 00:00:23.730
It's always an honor
and a pleasure to speak with you.
跟你說話總是備感榮幸。

00:00:25.110 --> 00:00:30.210
Audrey: In the Innovative Minds
video podcast, in the very beginning
在「唐鳳佮創新」的影片中，

00:00:30.210 --> 00:00:34.410
we toyed with the idea of having
the audience posting Slido questions.
我們之前在盤算有機會讓觀眾用Slido寫下問題

00:00:34.650 --> 00:00:38.190
But because it was a studio
format, that never came to be.
但因為形式關係，我們無法達成。

00:00:38.190 --> 00:00:42.840
So I'm really happy that for this
particular convening, we actually have
因此，我非常開心今天的討論中，

00:00:42.900 --> 00:00:45.780
Slido-driven questions. So we'll talk for
我們將討論觀眾通過 slido 提出的問題,我們將我們將討論

00:00:46.055 --> 00:00:50.135
roughly half an hour and we
already have five questions
大約半小時，且我們已經有觀眾投票出的

00:00:50.135 --> 00:00:52.625
voted by the people, right?
五個問題了對吧?

00:00:52.835 --> 00:00:57.185
So, we'll answer them in order
and Glen will probably take
所以，我們將來順序回答疑惑，格倫

00:00:57.185 --> 00:01:02.075
the first question, but we'll do a lot
of back and forth. Without further ado,
將先回答第一個問題，但我們將會來回幾次。

00:01:02.465 --> 00:01:07.205
let's recognize "mashbean"
豆泥 Yen-Lin's question,
我們先來討論豆泥、彥霖的問題

00:01:07.235 --> 00:01:08.765
which goes like this.
他是這樣寫的

00:01:09.425 --> 00:01:13.455
So Glen wrote — back in February —
this article called Political
格倫在二月寫了名為21世紀的

00:01:13.455 --> 00:01:15.645
Ideologies for the 21st Century.
政治意識形態的文章。

00:01:16.214 --> 00:01:19.785
The Gathering Storm expansion pack
for the Civilization VI

00:01:19.785 --> 00:01:25.274
video game, inspired
the article, with emerging

00:01:25.280 --> 00:01:29.595
technologies as well as the polities
that those technologies enabled.

00:01:30.155 --> 00:01:35.225
In the article, Glen mentioned
Corporate Libertarianism,
在這個文章中，格倫提到了企業自由意志主義

00:01:35.525 --> 00:01:40.384
which is more closely linked to
the capitalism-fueled blockchain
這與充滿資本主義推動的區塊鏈

00:01:40.390 --> 00:01:44.945
technology ideology. But also
within the web3 space
科技意識形態。
但在第三代網際網路的空間

00:01:45.005 --> 00:01:49.955
there's also Digital Democracy,
that many DAOs, including of course,
也有數位民主，很多DAO，想當然很多的台灣民眾

00:01:49.955 --> 00:01:54.155
many people in Taiwan who practice
digital democracy on top of web3.
正在Web3上參與數位民主的實作

00:01:54.515 --> 00:01:57.365
So it looks like to mashbean that there's
所以在豆泥的眼中看來

00:01:58.095 --> 00:02:01.815
some competition, but there's also
some collaboration going on here.
在這塊領域中有部分合作與部分競爭的狀態

00:02:02.055 --> 00:02:05.685
So, how do you feel about
the co-opetition between
你是如何看待第三代網路中

00:02:05.685 --> 00:02:07.215
the two ideologies in the
兩種意識型態的

00:02:07.215 --> 00:02:08.205
web3 space?
競合關係?

00:02:09.044 --> 00:02:12.795
Glen: So I think, Audrey, you and
I have always been big believers
唐鳳，我想你跟我都是在跨領域合作上的

00:02:12.795 --> 00:02:14.625
in multi-sectoral collaboration.
一個非常大的信徒

00:02:14.630 --> 00:02:19.665
I think that's been central to many of the
things that you've accomplished in Taiwan.
我想這個是你在台灣完成很多事情的核心。

00:02:20.325 --> 00:02:25.875
And I think, unfortunately, there's
been a period of time since the 1970s.
然而很不幸的，自從1970年代開始至今有段時間。

00:02:26.280 --> 00:02:31.290
where technology has increasingly
been driven exclusively by the private
科技的的成長完全是由私部門驅動

00:02:31.290 --> 00:02:35.700
sector, with the public sector and
the social sector more in a defensive
而社會及公部門更像是抵抗

00:02:35.820 --> 00:02:40.109
or protective role rather
than a shaping and engaging role.
或是保護的角色而非參與形塑與參與。

00:02:40.950 --> 00:02:47.579
And I think it shouldn't be very
surprising that if you leave things
但我想如果事情被置於這樣的模式中

00:02:47.760 --> 00:02:53.279
entirely in that mode, technologies
have a tendency to reinforce
也不會太訝異，畢竟企業會有著那些增強

00:02:53.595 --> 00:02:56.174
the systems in which they're created.
自己所創造出來體系的傾向

00:02:56.475 --> 00:03:01.155
The private sector has a capitalist
logic, and it's therefore not surprising
私部門有著資本主義的邏輯，這種極端資本主義的版本

00:03:01.155 --> 00:03:05.984
that we would see developing within
a purely private mode, this sort
將發展變成一個純私有的模式

00:03:05.984 --> 00:03:08.595
of extreme capitalist version.
這件事情一點都不讓人驚訝

00:03:09.135 --> 00:03:15.165
But on the other hand, that's come to
conflict with a number of social values:
另一方面，這也跟不少的社會價值有著衝突

00:03:15.674 --> 00:03:23.100
environmental sustainability, legality,
concerns about risk and
環境永續性、合法性以及過度金融化

00:03:23.160 --> 00:03:24.959
hyper-financialization, et cetera.
這樣相關等等的風險

00:03:25.530 --> 00:03:31.709
And I think it's my view that maybe
most of the activity, or at least most
在我想法中，大部分的活動，或是大部分在第三代網際網路

00:03:31.709 --> 00:03:35.790
of the money in the web3 space has
gone in this hyper-capitalist direction,
的錢財都是走向超級資本主義的方向

00:03:35.790 --> 00:03:41.399
and that's unfortunate.
But that if the public and social sectors
這是十分不幸的。
但如果公眾及社會部門介入

00:03:41.399 --> 00:03:46.980
engage, there will very quickly be
pressure against those outcome.
那就會很快的給予壓力抵制這樣的結果。

00:03:48.195 --> 00:03:52.934
That pressure will tend to select
in favor of the minority of things
這樣的壓力就會趨向於選擇少數的事件

00:03:53.234 --> 00:03:57.494
that are consistent with these
other principles socially.
會與社會上的處事原則一致

00:03:58.095 --> 00:04:02.084
And so maybe in the end,
all the problematic things
在最終，那些有問題的事情

00:04:02.084 --> 00:04:03.734
going on aren't so important,
就變得不那麼重要了

00:04:04.364 --> 00:04:08.054
if we're able to bring those
other sectors to engage, because they

00:04:08.054 --> 00:04:11.984
will act as a filtering mechanism
and a reinforcement mechanism for

00:04:11.984 --> 00:04:16.724
the important minority of things that
has this more democratic flavor.

00:04:19.065 --> 00:04:23.295
Audrey: Okay, so you talked about
the competition part, right?
唐鳳：好的，我們討論到了競爭的部分對吧？

00:04:23.295 --> 00:04:27.285
There's the private sector logic
as well as the public and social

00:04:27.285 --> 00:04:32.745
sectors — currently in the minority, but
consistent reuse of the technology.

00:04:33.135 --> 00:04:34.755
What about cooperation?
那有關合作的部分呢?

00:04:35.035 --> 00:04:39.295
Are there particular modes that you
see that currently the private sector,

00:04:39.385 --> 00:04:43.795
like rich individuals or companies and
so on, are nevertheless interested,

00:04:43.885 --> 00:04:48.655
enticed, by the potentials of the
social and public sector use of web3?

00:04:49.195 --> 00:04:51.475
Glen: Yes, absolutely.
格倫：是的，當然。

00:04:51.955 --> 00:04:57.655
I think one of the most important
things to recognize is as problematic
我想最重要的事情是認知的那些問題

00:04:57.655 --> 00:05:03.235
as certain elements of the hyper
capitalist DeFi world are,
特別是在那些過度金融化的去中心化金融世界

00:05:04.230 --> 00:05:09.780
they are also critical to so much of
the possibilities that have opened up.

00:05:10.230 --> 00:05:14.250
We would not be having the social
conversation that we're having

00:05:14.250 --> 00:05:16.650
even about the incredible things
that are happening in Taiwan.

00:05:16.655 --> 00:05:23.580
I believe if there were a broader web3
conversation that was lifting up

00:05:24.020 --> 00:05:31.365
interest in this area.
Conversely, within — I believe

00:05:31.370 --> 00:05:37.095
strongly that while we've, you know,
labeled our book "Technology

00:05:37.095 --> 00:05:43.875
for Cooperative Diversity and Democracy",
that if the tools that we are

00:05:44.175 --> 00:05:48.615
building aren't capable of making
business organizations more productive,

00:05:49.065 --> 00:05:54.855
aren't capable of making personal
relationships richer, aren't capable

00:05:55.495 --> 00:06:02.295
of making religious institutions,
both more inclusive,

00:06:02.295 --> 00:06:06.675
but also with a stronger
foundation and more durable in the

00:06:06.675 --> 00:06:08.985
digital age, then we will have failed.

00:06:09.675 --> 00:06:16.784
Because anything that is powerful
at strengthening democracy

00:06:16.995 --> 00:06:19.905
should also be powerful at strengthening

00:06:21.300 --> 00:06:23.730
the way that people work together
productively and the way that

00:06:23.730 --> 00:06:25.710
they worship, and so forth.

00:06:25.950 --> 00:06:30.960
So, ultimately, I think most of the
applications of the things we're

00:06:30.960 --> 00:06:34.200
developing, if they're successful, will
probably end up in the private sector.

00:06:36.210 --> 00:06:36.600
Audrey: Yeah.
是的。

00:06:36.810 --> 00:06:42.570
So in the past 10 years in the
g0v hackathons, what I've noticed is
在過去十年零時政府的黑客松中，我發覺了

00:06:42.570 --> 00:06:49.110
that eventually the largest private sector
people in Taiwan — MediaTek,
台灣最大型的私部門，像聯發科

00:06:49.170 --> 00:06:52.710
Acer, HTC — they send people
、宏碁、宏達電，他們都將人

00:06:53.080 --> 00:06:55.060
to g0v hackathons.
送到我們G0V的黑客松來。

00:06:55.060 --> 00:07:00.190
They even have g0v hackathon affiliate clubs
and events and so on within
甚至他們在公司下面有G0V黑客松

00:07:00.190 --> 00:07:04.840
their large companies, precisely because
they see this as kind of collaborative
的附屬社團或活動，正是因為它們看到了這種協作研究的方式

00:07:04.840 --> 00:07:11.190
research, to the latest and greatest
in public sector

00:07:11.650 --> 00:07:14.065
entrepreneurship, so to speak.

00:07:14.335 --> 00:07:19.165
And in Taiwan, the private
sector people, they do have a kind

00:07:19.165 --> 00:07:25.105
of attunement to the social
sector needs. It goes beyond just ESG,

00:07:25.195 --> 00:07:30.055
it's sort of entrepreneurship,
that will have like certain dedicated

00:07:30.060 --> 00:07:35.425
small units within the larger
private sector, almost as connectors,

00:07:35.929 --> 00:07:40.640
to the social and public sectors,
but in a kind of common mode, where

00:07:40.640 --> 00:07:42.799
people can say, "well, it's in the commons.

00:07:42.799 --> 00:07:45.169
It's on GitHub, or GitLab, and so on,
那發生在Github 或是GitLab之類的平台上

00:07:45.440 --> 00:07:48.679
and so it benefits everyone,"
although on the
他嘉惠了所有人，

00:07:48.679 --> 00:07:52.039
private sector's time, and that's
what enabled Presidential

00:07:52.070 --> 00:07:53.419
Hackathon and so on to happen.

00:07:53.719 --> 00:07:56.390
Is your role within Microsoft
something like that?
你在微軟裡面的角色像是這樣嗎?

00:07:56.450 --> 00:07:56.630
Yeah. I mean, I think in many
ways that's the role
我覺得我用了很多方式做了

00:08:00.229 --> 00:08:01.700
I've served, but I would also
這樣的角色，但我想說他其實在私部門

00:08:02.234 --> 00:08:04.965
say that I think it goes even deeper
into the private sector than that.
走得其實比起想像中的更深入。

00:08:04.965 --> 00:08:05.804
Think about GitHub
想想看GitHub

00:08:06.244 --> 00:08:07.455
GitHub's business model.
還有Github的商業模式

00:08:08.325 --> 00:08:12.794
GitHub is known as a provider of
platforms for open source software
Github是以一個提供開源軟體的平台而被熟知

00:08:12.945 --> 00:08:17.625
but their business model is all
based on internal, internally open
但他的商業模式都是根據內部，內部公司

00:08:17.625 --> 00:08:19.544
source projects within companies
公開的原始碼來進行。

00:08:20.085 --> 00:08:25.125
And I think that model goes for all
而我想這種模式可以適用於

00:08:25.890 --> 00:08:27.540
the things that we do.
所以我們做過的事情。

00:08:27.720 --> 00:08:30.660
So, you know, quadratic funding
has primarily been used in
所以，你知道，平方募資法主要是用在

00:08:30.660 --> 00:08:35.460
open and public way to support
open source software, but there
開放及公眾的方式，去支持那些開源軟體

00:08:35.460 --> 00:08:37.140
are public goods within Microsoft.
但那在微軟內部也有部分的公共財的部分

00:08:37.350 --> 00:08:40.770
We have many different divisions,
and each has their
我們有許多不同的面相，每一個面向

00:08:40.770 --> 00:08:43.020
own profit and loss interest.
都有著他們自己的利潤及損失。

00:08:43.740 --> 00:08:46.830
And it's hard to get them all to produce
common infrastructure for the company.
且這是一個很難的方式以此做為公司的通用基礎建設

00:08:47.400 --> 00:08:52.560
And that problem is really the same,
internally, as the problem

00:08:52.680 --> 00:08:54.640
open source software.

00:08:55.530 --> 00:08:56.670
faces in the world
轉眼看相世界。

00:08:57.120 --> 00:09:03.120
And so I ultimately believe that in
a really pluralist world,
所以我極度相信在一個極度多元的世界中

00:09:03.660 --> 00:09:08.640
these tools will be just as useful
in a completely open public way as they

00:09:08.645 --> 00:09:12.450
will within particular nation states,
within particular corporations, et cetera.

00:09:12.840 --> 00:09:18.630
And that there will be a whole world
ecosystem that they create,

00:09:18.630 --> 00:09:20.480
at many different levels of cooperation.

00:09:22.444 --> 00:09:22.645
Audrey: Mm-hmm.
恩...

00:09:23.084 --> 00:09:27.005
So you're envisioning something
like Gitcoin Enterprise Edition?

00:09:27.010 --> 00:09:27.405
Glen: Exactly.
是的。

00:09:28.410 --> 00:09:30.330
Audrey: That's excellent.
棒極了。

00:09:30.810 --> 00:09:33.600
And that brings us nicely
to the second question.
這很好地把我們帶來了第二個問題。

00:09:34.170 --> 00:09:38.580
Mashbean would also like to know,
there's this book, published
豆泥那本

00:09:38.580 --> 00:09:44.070
this July by Balaji Srinivasan,
called the Network State.

00:09:44.430 --> 00:09:49.350
Within the book, one of the
arguments, was that inrapreneurship

00:09:49.355 --> 00:09:51.600
or entrepreneurship — anything

00:09:52.560 --> 00:09:57.690
involving starting something new —
is part of the resilience in

00:09:57.720 --> 00:09:59.790
starting, bootstrapping a community.

00:10:00.060 --> 00:10:03.330
And a community includes,
of course, sovereign nations.

00:10:03.600 --> 00:10:07.380
So from the viewpoint of
Plurality, what's your take

00:10:07.800 --> 00:10:09.600
on this kind of entrepreneurship?

00:10:09.810 --> 00:10:14.610
Because we talk about collaborative
and cooperating diversity, but
因為我們談到協作及合作的多樣性

00:10:14.610 --> 00:10:18.600
what's the relationship between that
idea and entrepreneurship in general?

00:10:19.170 --> 00:10:19.920
Glen: Audrey, have you read the book?
格倫 : 唐鳳你讀了書了嗎?

00:10:22.320 --> 00:10:22.980
Audrey: A little bit.
看了一些。

00:10:23.010 --> 00:10:23.310
Skimmed the book.

00:10:23.310 --> 00:10:23.580
Glen: Yeah.

00:10:23.700 --> 00:10:28.830
I actually have a review of it
that isn't published yet, but

00:10:28.830 --> 00:10:30.330
I've been thinking a lot about the book.
那本書使我思考了很多。

00:10:30.330 --> 00:10:33.180
It's a very interesting
and provocative book,
那是本讓人興奮且有趣的書籍

00:10:33.180 --> 00:10:35.400
and very influential
in the web3 world.
同時他也在Web3的世界中有很大的影響力。

00:10:35.920 --> 00:10:37.650
Do you have any reactions first?
你有甚麼想先回饋的嗎?

00:10:39.765 --> 00:10:40.245
Audrey: Well,
唐鳳：恩

00:10:40.245 --> 00:10:45.195
I have read Vitalik's reactions and
your initial reactions on Twitter.
我有在推特上看過維塔利克及你的初步回應

00:10:45.225 --> 00:10:48.855
I think it's a useful metaphor.
我想這是個有用的比喻

00:10:49.005 --> 00:10:53.955
Just like how people can think
about governance
像是人民如何去思考治理

00:10:54.235 --> 00:10:58.225
without a tied locality, a territory;
但卻不受到固定疆域及場域的限制

00:10:58.255 --> 00:11:00.325
That's how we talk about
internet governance.
這就是我們如何討論網路治理

00:11:00.625 --> 00:11:04.705
The thing with internet governance is
that it's kind of abstract.
網路治理就是會像這樣的一些模糊

00:11:04.710 --> 00:11:09.325
It's difficult to get people all
excited about the .tw or
讓群眾對於.tw或是

00:11:09.325 --> 00:11:11.065
in domains and things like that.
其他的網域感到有興趣是困難的

00:11:11.335 --> 00:11:14.989
But the Network State provides
a kind of certain
但是我猜網路國家提供了某種比起域名

00:11:15.079 --> 00:11:19.219
affinity-based -- so definitely more
tangible, I guess, than domain names.
更具親和力的方式，所以應該會更可以接觸

00:11:19.489 --> 00:11:23.569
And you can also do internet governance-like
governance on it
同時你也可以在上面像一般的治理過程般做網路治理。

00:11:23.750 --> 00:11:29.030
So I think it has this popularizing,
aspect to it, much as you just

00:11:29.035 --> 00:11:33.890
said that the DeFi world has a kind of
popularizing idea when it comes

00:11:33.890 --> 00:11:39.140
to the scale of diversity and the
scale of potential cooperation.

00:11:39.145 --> 00:11:39.199
Glen: Yeah.
格倫：是的。

00:11:39.770 --> 00:11:44.630
There's this thinker called John Dewey,
who very much influenced my thought.
一名叫做約翰·杜威的思想家對我的思想影響很大。

00:11:45.260 --> 00:11:49.550
And he has a book in 1927 called
"The Public and its Problems."
他在1927出版了《公眾及其問題》

00:11:50.270 --> 00:11:56.990
In that book he argues that
new technologies create new patterns
在書中他爭論了新的科技就會導致產生

00:11:56.990 --> 00:12:03.440
of association, both just because
of sort of social dynamics, who can
新的社群模式，就像是某種社會的動態狀況

00:12:03.440 --> 00:12:08.000
communicate with whom and associate
with whom, but also because
誰可以跟誰通訊、可以跟誰結社

00:12:10.205 --> 00:12:14.040
embed us in new patterns of what
economists would call externalities or
但同時也把我們鑲嵌在經濟學者所謂的外部性

00:12:14.040 --> 00:12:15.450
what he would just call interactions.
就是他所稱的交互影響。

00:12:16.200 --> 00:12:20.820
Our actions come to affect each
other in different ways, and therefore
我們的行動會以不同的方式回來互相影響

00:12:21.210 --> 00:12:29.460
the necessary governance structures,
change with the changes in technology.
所以那些必要性的治理框架，會隨著科技的轉變而變動

00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:35.430
Yet, the borders of nation
state don't, or at least don't much.
但國家的疆界卻不會，至少不這麼多的。

00:12:36.840 --> 00:12:41.265
Even the subnational localities
don't change very much over time.
就算是國家下的區域也不會隨著時間有這麼大的轉變。

00:12:42.015 --> 00:12:48.704
And so he argues that what we need is
the constant emergent of what, what

00:12:48.710 --> 00:12:54.165
he calls new publics, which will be
these groups of people that will come

00:12:54.165 --> 00:12:58.975
to govern themselves in relationship to
this set of interactions that they have.

00:12:59.985 --> 00:13:04.365
He describes the figure of
what he calls an expert, which

00:13:04.365 --> 00:13:09.944
kind of corresponds to what Balaji
calls a founder,

00:13:10.189 --> 00:13:12.225
but the expert is a bit different.

00:13:12.225 --> 00:13:16.635
And, and I think you and I have aimed,
I don't know if I've
但我想你跟我都專注，我不確定我有沒有說過

00:13:16.635 --> 00:13:20.745
talked to you about this, but you and I
have aimed, I think to build this book

00:13:20.745 --> 00:13:25.725
project around this Deweyan notion of
an expert, because Dewey's concept of

00:13:25.725 --> 00:13:29.745
an expert is not a king or ruler.

00:13:30.405 --> 00:13:31.275
It's a convener.

00:13:32.805 --> 00:13:34.965
It's a convener of a new polity.
是一個新的政治體制的召集人。

00:13:35.745 --> 00:13:42.465
So the crucial role of the expert
is to let a polity see itself, see the

00:13:42.465 --> 00:13:47.655
interactions that it's having, and
therefore come into a new form of

00:13:47.655 --> 00:13:52.515
democratic governance that didn't
exist before because that set of people

00:13:52.515 --> 00:13:55.475
didn't recognize the interactions
they were having with each other.

00:13:57.805 --> 00:14:00.930
And that's, I think, very much modeled
in the way we're thinking about the book.

00:14:00.990 --> 00:14:04.890
As you know, we're gonna put out some
material that hopefully will help a

00:14:04.890 --> 00:14:07.620
community see itself in that material.

00:14:08.130 --> 00:14:11.790
But then, they will become the maintainers,

00:14:12.600 --> 00:14:15.210
and it will become democratically
accountable to those people who

00:14:15.490 --> 00:14:18.900
connected with it.

00:14:18.985 --> 00:14:24.720
And I think that the Internet
was originally

00:14:24.725 --> 00:14:26.280
imagined by people like J.C.R. Licklider,

00:14:27.255 --> 00:14:30.855
as a foundation for that kind of
what I would call a network society

00:14:31.575 --> 00:14:37.095
where people are part of multiple
intersecting emergent publics.

00:14:37.905 --> 00:14:43.215
Now, he only did it for communication
protocol, so it was very first step.

00:14:43.875 --> 00:14:46.845
But I think what we're all
working towards is creating that

00:14:46.845 --> 00:14:50.595
kind of a network society, not
a world where everyone choose

00:14:51.255 --> 00:14:54.945
their favorite little statelet and
is completely committed to that.

00:14:55.215 --> 00:15:00.405
But where everyone participates in many
of these emergent democratic polities

00:15:00.405 --> 00:15:07.485
that are constantly emerging and shifting
and I think that

00:15:07.785 --> 00:15:16.005
that is the right vision of how we
need to imagine the way

00:15:16.005 --> 00:15:17.785
in which networks will transform governments.

00:15:20.925 --> 00:15:21.135
Audrey: Yeah.

00:15:21.135 --> 00:15:26.985
As you talk about the expert
versus the founder,

00:15:26.985 --> 00:15:31.785
I'm reminded of Steve Chen,
co-founder of YouTube, in my video
我同時也在我的影片中提醒了Youtube的發起人陳士駿

00:15:31.785 --> 00:15:34.035
podcast, who talked about how the
他提及了對於發起人

00:15:34.115 --> 00:15:38.405
"founder" is almost always a
retroactively coined myth.
總是變成了一個追溯了創造的神話

00:15:38.915 --> 00:15:43.955
Like when YouTube was first
founded and he had many co-founders
像是Youtube一開始被創立，他有著許多的共同創辦人

00:15:44.035 --> 00:15:46.655
with experiences in PayPal and so on
這些人同時在Paypal中有著歷練。

00:15:46.925 --> 00:15:50.285
It's almost never about a personal hero.
一個個人英雄的是不太可能存在的

00:15:50.765 --> 00:15:55.085
It's almost never about this one
insight that drives the

00:15:55.085 --> 00:16:00.425
entire market segments. It is more or less,
about a bunch of people who

00:16:01.470 --> 00:16:05.340
vibes similarly, who builds social
connections starting from their

00:16:05.340 --> 00:16:10.590
very different, diverse communities,
and try and fail a few times,

00:16:10.980 --> 00:16:14.760
and then finally finding a
product- or service-market fit.

00:16:15.390 --> 00:16:18.090
And then of course, the myth-making
begins, and then we
且當然，迷思創造開始

00:16:18.090 --> 00:16:20.460
retroactively build a founder myth.
然後我們開始回溯去建造了創辦人迷思

00:16:20.760 --> 00:16:25.740
And what I'm hearing from
you seems to say that it's

00:16:26.120 --> 00:16:26.990
this process.

00:16:27.020 --> 00:16:31.670
There's more facilitating, reflective
process, that we're focusing on.

00:16:31.790 --> 00:16:36.170
And instead of a particular
branding or a particular founder, we
儘管有著特別的品牌或是特別的發起人

00:16:36.170 --> 00:16:40.880
want to enable everyone to have
this kind of network-making power.
我們想要讓每個人都有著這樣的脈絡決定權

00:16:40.885 --> 00:16:42.170
And am I reading you correctly?
我這樣對你的解讀是正確的嗎?

00:16:42.200 --> 00:16:42.290
Glen: Yeah.
是

00:16:42.290 --> 00:16:45.050
I think that's quite related to some
of the discussions we've had about
我想這跟我們所討論過的人工智慧

00:16:45.050 --> 00:16:48.160
artificial intelligence, because
有很大的關聯性

00:16:49.730 --> 00:16:55.370
I think it's in the nature of human
myth-making and narrative discourse.
我認為這是人類創造神話及敘述話語的自然現象

00:16:56.110 --> 00:17:01.620
to need to invest that communal feeling in
something that's imagined to be an agent.
他們需要講那種共同的感覺去想像投射在一個代理者上

00:17:01.949 --> 00:17:03.630
A single agent, you know?
一個單一的代理人，你知道?

00:17:03.780 --> 00:17:04.020
Audrey: Yep.
對。

00:17:04.889 --> 00:17:11.399
Glen: So we call these collective statistical
models that we create "artificial
所以我們將這種極
00:17:11.399 --> 00:17:14.109
intelligences" and we call

00:17:14.399 --> 00:17:19.470
the community that creates a new
platform a "founder",
我們說社群創造了

00:17:19.500 --> 00:17:28.950
because we want to hear the story of,
Gilgamesh and Enkidu,
因為我們想聽到恩奇都及吉爾伽美什
00:17:28.950 --> 00:17:31.889
or the story of the Homeric heroes.
或是荷馬史詩這樣子的故事
00:17:31.889 --> 00:17:32.190
Right?
對吧?
00:17:32.310 --> 00:17:34.970
Like, rather than tell the
history of Greece,
像是，談到古希臘的歷史

00:17:35.050 --> 00:17:37.080
we tell the Homeric myth.
我們就會談到荷馬史詩

00:17:37.409 --> 00:17:37.740
Audrey: Right.
唐鳳：是的

00:17:38.070 --> 00:17:45.899
Glen: And so it's a very human way
to encapsulate
這是一個用個人英雄主義的述說，
00:17:46.320 --> 00:17:51.750
a collective effort to, in the
story of a heroic individual.
用非常人為的方式，去包裝一個集體的成果

00:17:53.760 --> 00:17:54.090
Audrey: Mm-hmm
唐鳳：恩恩。

00:17:55.860 --> 00:18:00.179
That's very interesting because
the next question is:
這非常有趣因為下一個問題是

00:18:00.179 --> 00:18:05.639
"Can you list some examples
how designer storytellers, marketers,

00:18:05.699 --> 00:18:08.729
and publishers might be able to help?"

00:18:08.939 --> 00:18:14.750
And I interpreted that as weaving
new form of narratives, that.
我將其解釋成，如何去編織一個新的述說方式

00:18:15.510 --> 00:18:20.160
shows different possibilities
about the emerging technologies
展現了新興技術的不同可能

00:18:20.400 --> 00:18:25.500
that is somewhat decoupled from
this individualistic mythic heroes.
某種程度的把個人主義的英雄迷思給脫鉤了。

00:18:25.530 --> 00:18:25.680
Glen: Yeah.
是

00:18:25.680 --> 00:18:31.260
So, I think that there are all
kinds of ways that people can help with
所以我想，任何人都可以幫忙

00:18:31.265 --> 00:18:34.480
the book project. Publishers
書本的專案。

00:18:35.400 --> 00:18:36.210
are one thing

00:18:37.334 --> 00:18:41.235
we've had a really interesting struggle
interacting with, because they're

00:18:41.240 --> 00:18:43.455
very tied to a very specific

00:18:43.814 --> 00:18:50.605
economic model, even if, it's not
necessarily more lucrative.

00:18:50.625 --> 00:18:55.605
So we, we can use help from publishers
who want to be creative and innovate
所以，我們可以世界上有各種機會

00:18:55.605 --> 00:18:57.435
on possibilities all over the world.
的創造力及研發發行者

00:18:57.915 --> 00:19:04.860
But I think one of my favorite
roles that I hope people can play, is
但我想我喜愛且希望人們可以扮演的

00:19:04.860 --> 00:19:10.350
what I would call translators, but not
just translators in the language sense,
是我所謂的轉譯者，不單單是語言的翻譯

00:19:11.460 --> 00:19:13.470
what I would call subcultural translators.
我會指的是子文化的轉譯

00:19:13.920 --> 00:19:24.450
So I'd love a version of the book,
a fork that is for deeply

00:19:24.540 --> 00:19:31.230
Christian people, that uses
scriptural references and that tells
基督徒，他們使用聖經作為例子去闡述

00:19:31.800 --> 00:19:33.420
the story of what we're trying to tell
那些我們想要去說的故事

00:19:34.425 --> 00:19:38.774
in the language of the Christian
tradition, or in the language of the
把他以基督徒的傳統語言、或是在那些

00:19:38.774 --> 00:19:44.264
Daoist tradition or in the language
of Buddhist or
道教或是佛教的傳統語言

00:19:44.325 --> 00:19:45.975
Animist traditions, et cetera.
或泛靈論的等等傳統中去述說。

00:19:46.395 --> 00:19:51.225
I'd love versions that are
highly technical for computer
我喜歡那個給電腦科學家的科技版本

00:19:51.225 --> 00:19:55.784
scientists and economists that
translate our words into symbols

00:19:56.325 --> 00:20:00.165
And I'd love versions
that are purely visual,
我也喜歡那個純圖像的版本

00:20:01.380 --> 00:20:05.115
or almost purely visual, a comic book
or something like that.
幾乎是純是覺得，像是漫畫書那樣的模式。

00:20:05.865 --> 00:20:12.135
It's in that plurality of different ways
他可以用多樣化的方式倍呈現

00:20:12.135 --> 00:20:17.535
of speaking that I think the book
can reach its greatest potential.
去被訴說，會讓這本書觸及更大的可能性。

00:20:18.135 --> 00:20:22.605
Of course, I'd love some of that
to feedback into the original root

00:20:23.055 --> 00:20:26.415
but there's only so much that we're
going to be capable of cohering.

00:20:27.014 --> 00:20:29.565
And I hope there will be parts that
cohere and then there will be many

00:20:29.565 --> 00:20:35.365
parts that don't cohere and that try
to tell the same thing differently.

00:20:39.180 --> 00:20:39.900
Audrey: Yeah, indeed.

00:20:39.990 --> 00:20:46.140
You may or may not know,
we've just launched this

00:20:46.170 --> 00:20:51.480
event called Ideathon, where
we ask everyone to imagine

00:20:51.510 --> 00:20:53.970
how future is like in 2040.

00:20:54.360 --> 00:20:56.400
we call it #2040Plurality
我叫他2040多元討論

00:20:56.860 --> 00:21:04.300
The top 10 ideas that corresponds to
cooperative diversity
前十個想法是有關於多元的合作模式

00:21:04.630 --> 00:21:09.070
will, in addition to of course,
having Soulbound Tokens issued,

00:21:09.280 --> 00:21:16.390
get some expert guidance
into making these visions immersive

00:21:16.395 --> 00:21:22.515
experiences. I truly believe that
one of the ways to go beyond,

00:21:22.605 --> 00:21:28.815
the individualistic heroic myth is
to simply situate someone in a future.

00:21:29.175 --> 00:21:32.565
I was inspired by science
fictions a lot, as you know,

00:21:32.895 --> 00:21:36.325
and one of the interesting
examples I encountered

00:21:36.510 --> 00:21:42.390
was "A Tale of Two Futures"
telling about a more dystopic

00:21:42.390 --> 00:21:47.670
and a more utopic future using
near future technology by Pistono

00:21:47.910 --> 00:21:50.460
of the Italian five star movement.

00:21:50.460 --> 00:21:54.810
So it's a kind of political statement,
a political philosophy

00:21:54.810 --> 00:21:56.790
packaged as science fiction.

00:21:57.060 --> 00:22:02.580
And I was like, yeah, a lot of what's
in the book about empathy-building

00:22:02.580 --> 00:22:04.740
machines and so on, could really work

00:22:05.205 --> 00:22:08.595
if it's delivered in an immersive form.

00:22:08.595 --> 00:22:12.975
So I truly believe in multimodal
storytelling, and I hope

00:22:12.975 --> 00:22:16.445
that the plurality book can
benefit from those futures.

00:22:16.445 --> 00:22:17.175
Glen: That's fascinating.

00:22:17.235 --> 00:22:22.335
There's a... the chair of
our board at RadicalxChange,

00:22:22.335 --> 00:22:26.125
Christopher Thomas, is
putting on an exhibition

00:22:26.685 --> 00:22:31.725
at the Institute of Contemporary
Art in London, called Another World,

00:22:32.755 --> 00:22:34.500
where he's displaying

00:22:34.770 --> 00:22:38.610
some of these immersive
future possibilities.

00:22:38.940 --> 00:22:41.460
Hopefully there could be some
kind of a collaboration

00:22:41.460 --> 00:22:46.800
to help bring some of the insights
from your ideathon to

00:22:47.040 --> 00:22:48.950
that experience in London and in Berlin.

00:22:52.140 --> 00:22:53.220
Audrey: That would be excellent
那真是棒極了。

00:22:53.879 --> 00:22:59.310
Continuing into the next question
which reads, "how might the

00:22:59.310 --> 00:23:04.110
Taiwanese project mentioned
in the article", in the book announcement —

00:23:04.470 --> 00:23:10.560
because many project leaders
are within the audience now — so

00:23:10.560 --> 00:23:15.570
"how can they play a more active role
in leading this global movement?"

00:23:16.020 --> 00:23:16.590
What do you think?

00:23:17.270 --> 00:23:23.685
Glen: I profoundly believe and have now
dedicated a lot of my life to the

00:23:23.685 --> 00:23:29.504
proposition that the Taiwanese experience
is a uniquely important one for the world.

00:23:29.955 --> 00:23:37.935
It's uniquely important for substative
reasons, because so much has

00:23:37.935 --> 00:23:41.445
been accomplished and it's such a
hopeful example, but it's also uniquely

00:23:41.445 --> 00:23:48.044
important for symbolic reasons, which is
that, as has been widely reported,

00:23:48.044 --> 00:23:54.225
there are great divisions within
Western societies today, within

00:23:54.675 --> 00:23:56.625
many liberal democratic societies,

00:23:57.284 --> 00:24:07.845
and those divisions are undermining

00:24:07.845 --> 00:24:12.645
the capacity of the societies to
effectually act on this area.

00:24:13.530 --> 00:24:16.379
But, and of course the technologies
that have been developed

00:24:16.379 --> 00:24:18.689
in Taiwan can be a powerful
part of addressing that problem.

00:24:18.990 --> 00:24:23.490
But even more than that, the mythos
of Taiwan, I believe can be an

00:24:23.939 --> 00:24:28.830
important driving force in addressing
them because, um, the stories unite

00:24:28.830 --> 00:24:33.870
people across many of the standard
divides in liberal democracies.

00:24:34.379 --> 00:24:40.320
The challenges of technology and
the challenges of authoritarianism

00:24:40.649 --> 00:24:42.120
are two of the few things

00:24:42.870 --> 00:24:47.310
people widely are concerned
about in liberal democracies.

00:24:47.820 --> 00:24:54.270
I believe that one reason Taiwan
has succeeded so much

00:24:54.689 --> 00:24:59.610
is the presence of those challenges
that have been so acute in Taiwan.

00:25:00.120 --> 00:25:06.780
And if it can act as that sort
of narrative focus, that

00:25:06.780 --> 00:25:10.860
maybe even more than it deserves,
but just as a narrative,

00:25:12.210 --> 00:25:17.760
brings home to people the challenges
that they need to face up to.

00:25:18.480 --> 00:25:24.000
I believe it can bring people
together around a common purpose.

00:25:24.450 --> 00:25:28.470
I think to some extent
Ukraine has done that,

00:25:28.980 --> 00:25:32.700
but Ukraine has done it in a way
that is focused on a particular

00:25:32.910 --> 00:25:35.520
territorial dispute rather than

00:25:36.195 --> 00:25:39.705
primarily on a set of technological
tools that might be scalable to

00:25:39.705 --> 00:25:41.235
address problems in other countries.

00:25:41.445 --> 00:25:45.165
So I believe the symbolism of Taiwan

00:25:45.165 --> 00:25:46.185
is incredibly important.

00:25:46.185 --> 00:25:51.075
So, to circle back to the question, I
hope that folks in Taiwan

00:25:51.075 --> 00:25:54.645
will keep doing their good work, but I
also hope that we can find more and more

00:25:54.645 --> 00:25:59.895
platforms for bringing in a narratively
compelling way, that story to people all

00:25:59.895 --> 00:26:03.125
around the world and making them feel

00:26:05.010 --> 00:26:10.590
a pop cultural presence,
just as other pop cultural elements

00:26:10.590 --> 00:26:16.320
have come from Taiwan to the rest of
the world, in the

00:26:16.530 --> 00:26:18.129
common discourse in those countries.

00:26:22.350 --> 00:26:23.250
Audrey: Yeah, indeed.

00:26:23.490 --> 00:26:27.870
I remember in the past couple
years, uh, when I talk about

00:26:27.870 --> 00:26:31.620
how we fought off the pandemic
without a single day of lockdown and

00:26:31.620 --> 00:26:36.180
the infodemic — the disinformation
crisis — without any administrative

00:26:36.240 --> 00:26:38.340
takedowns, there's this

00:26:38.405 --> 00:26:43.355
kind of sense of disbelief from
people from western liberal democracies,

00:26:43.415 --> 00:26:49.325
listening to the stories. When I was

00:26:49.325 --> 00:26:54.004
speaking to the UK New Local conference,
the general reaction was that it

00:26:54.004 --> 00:26:58.665
is too good to be true and then is too
different from the UK. I was like,

00:26:58.830 --> 00:27:01.889
yeah, if you don't want to call it the
Taiwan model, call it a New Zealand

00:27:01.889 --> 00:27:06.360
model because New Zealand played the
same playbook to even better

00:27:06.360 --> 00:27:08.639
effect, I would argue, than Taiwan.

00:27:08.645 --> 00:27:14.310
But yeah, those existential proofs,
that polarization is not inevitable,

00:27:14.610 --> 00:27:18.899
that social media
doesn't always lead to antisocial

00:27:18.899 --> 00:27:23.820
media behaviors, that we can
decouple proprietary platforms from

00:27:24.060 --> 00:27:26.735
social networks in general and so on.

00:27:27.004 --> 00:27:31.625
These are the points I believe
that you pointed out repeatedly, that

00:27:31.745 --> 00:27:33.514
Taiwanese people kind of take for granted,

00:27:33.575 --> 00:27:35.855
but most of the world doesn't,

00:27:35.915 --> 00:27:37.955
and that's the voices we need to amplify.

00:27:37.975 --> 00:27:43.175
Glen: I mean, I think frankly there is
quite a bit of implicit racism, not

00:27:43.175 --> 00:27:48.155
in the aggressive or anti form, but
just in the stereotyping form, there's

00:27:48.155 --> 00:27:51.725
this view among

00:27:53.834 --> 00:27:58.605
people in Western countries who are
mostly of Caucasian origin,

00:27:58.995 --> 00:28:02.745
that Asian people are all
ethnically the same,

00:28:02.745 --> 00:28:04.725
and that they all get
along with each other.

00:28:04.725 --> 00:28:09.855
And I think it's important to tell the
story of the diversity in Taiwan, of

00:28:09.860 --> 00:28:12.145
the indigenous communities,

00:28:12.435 --> 00:28:17.445
of the divisions between those who
came earlier to the island and those

00:28:17.445 --> 00:28:20.625
who came with the nationalists,

00:28:20.625 --> 00:28:24.314
and how those line up with
political divisions and how that

00:28:24.554 --> 00:28:28.605
mirrors the ethno-political divisions
that exist in the United States,

00:28:28.695 --> 00:28:33.075
and just understand that it is not as if

00:28:33.165 --> 00:28:38.895
Taiwan is just an island of
inherently cooperative, homogeneous

00:28:40.004 --> 00:28:44.475
robots or something like that,
you know what I mean?

00:28:45.675 --> 00:28:49.365
Audrey: Confucian, worshipping robots
or something...

00:28:49.875 --> 00:28:51.855
"Confucius robots". I like that.

00:28:51.915 --> 00:28:53.745
Yeah right.

00:28:53.805 --> 00:28:56.295
So truth to be told,

00:28:56.325 --> 00:29:01.035
I think there are more folk Taoists in
Taiwan than Confucius believers.

00:29:01.035 --> 00:29:05.775
But anyway, the point I think
which you made very succinctly is that

00:29:05.775 --> 00:29:11.145
Taiwan is not just a story of cooperation,
but also a story of diversity.

00:29:11.175 --> 00:29:15.135
And only when the diversity
parts are well understood

00:29:15.405 --> 00:29:16.785
by the Western counterparts,

00:29:16.815 --> 00:29:21.480
can we truly... I wouldn't say
influence, but at least build a bridge

00:29:21.570 --> 00:29:26.010
into the collective consciousness,
of the modern dialogue around

00:29:26.010 --> 00:29:29.940
the possibility of overcoming our
differences by building bridges.

00:29:30.270 --> 00:29:35.820
But bridge-building is currently
not as lucrative as

00:29:36.615 --> 00:29:41.865
the top talents who get paid
on the more authoritarian or

00:29:41.925 --> 00:29:47.415
the autonomous engines sort of AI or,
for that matter, the

00:29:47.415 --> 00:29:49.995
more speculative parts of crypto.

00:29:50.265 --> 00:29:53.625
So how much does money play
a role in all these, in

00:29:53.655 --> 00:29:55.605
especially retaining top talents?

00:29:55.995 --> 00:29:56.925
What do you think?

00:29:57.525 --> 00:30:00.855
Glen: First of all, there
are important ways we have

00:30:00.855 --> 00:30:03.345
to imagine for changing

00:30:04.100 --> 00:30:06.764
the even money based incentive structures.

00:30:07.245 --> 00:30:12.855
So you can imagine social medias,
social media companies having a very

00:30:12.855 --> 00:30:16.605
different business model.

00:30:17.055 --> 00:30:20.595
And a lot of people suggest that
the right alternative business

00:30:20.595 --> 00:30:21.975
model is selling subscriptions.

00:30:21.975 --> 00:30:24.675
But I actually don't think that
would make things all that much better.

00:30:25.335 --> 00:30:29.985
I actually think the right business
model for social media is selling to

00:30:29.985 --> 00:30:31.905
a range of collective organizations,

00:30:32.440 --> 00:30:37.470
but not selling them advertising spots,
selling them quality social network.

00:30:37.920 --> 00:30:43.710
Because individuals are not those who
are interested in paying for a functional,

00:30:44.700 --> 00:30:49.200
social network, because individuals
as individuals are interested in

00:30:49.420 --> 00:30:52.110
their node, they're not interested in the

00:30:52.110 --> 00:30:53.670
performance of the overall network.

00:30:54.030 --> 00:30:57.270
Organizations are interested in the
performance of the network, and in fact,

00:30:57.270 --> 00:30:59.730
Microsoft sells software to organizations,

00:31:00.435 --> 00:31:03.645
mostly sell to business organizations,
somewhat to governments, but you can

00:31:03.645 --> 00:31:11.385
imagine replacing advertisements with
churches and local governments,

00:31:11.385 --> 00:31:18.165
national governments, et cetera,
paying for algorithms that bridge the

00:31:18.170 --> 00:31:21.135
differences within those sub-graphs.

00:31:22.035 --> 00:31:27.585
In fact, the amount that governments are
already devoting to all kinds of cultural

00:31:27.585 --> 00:31:30.045
programming, all kinds of live et cetera,

00:31:30.165 --> 00:31:33.465
you put all that together,
that could easily pay for the

00:31:33.465 --> 00:31:35.355
revenue of these companies.

00:31:36.075 --> 00:31:41.505
So at a macro level, you could create
incentive structures where the product

00:31:41.510 --> 00:31:48.165
became a healthy, functioning social
fabric, paid for by all sorts

00:31:48.165 --> 00:31:51.375
of people who are part of the social
fabric rather than a social fabric

00:31:51.705 --> 00:31:54.465
that engages people to purchase products.

00:31:55.305 --> 00:31:59.535
So I think even the money
based incentives can change, but

00:31:59.535 --> 00:32:02.325
it's also important to recognize
that money is only one of many

00:32:02.715 --> 00:32:04.514
incentives that everyone responds to,

00:32:05.055 --> 00:32:09.495
and people seek money not for
its own sake, because there's money

00:32:09.524 --> 00:32:12.555
that doesn't — people talk
about money is giving directly

00:32:12.560 --> 00:32:13.485
to people — but it's not true.

00:32:13.665 --> 00:32:14.985
Money doesn't actually buy you anything.

00:32:15.465 --> 00:32:19.995
Money buys you investments in family,
investments in community, investments

00:32:21.179 --> 00:32:21.750
In other things.

00:32:21.750 --> 00:32:26.669
So if we can directly provide people
the ability to achieve those goals

00:32:26.669 --> 00:32:31.260
that they have, which are usually
collective goals of some form, even if

00:32:31.260 --> 00:32:35.460
it's just at the family level or just
at the local community level, then

00:32:35.669 --> 00:32:41.250
that's just as strong inducement
for people to participate as is money.

00:32:41.460 --> 00:32:47.490
Money is a solvent of sorts, but one thing
it can dissolve is some of those bonds,

00:32:48.105 --> 00:32:49.935
which are the things that
we're trying to purchase with

00:32:49.935 --> 00:32:51.675
the money in the first place.

00:32:52.335 --> 00:32:58.605
So I believe that, speaking to
the issues that are near to people's

00:32:58.605 --> 00:33:04.545
heart, whether it be environmental,
social justice, religious community

00:33:04.550 --> 00:33:10.665
cohesion, et cetera, is just as important
as is redirecting the flows of money to

00:33:10.665 --> 00:33:13.215
be consistent with those values.

00:33:17.745 --> 00:33:24.075
Audrey: Yeah. So I was reminded of the
RadicalxChange idea of plural money,

00:33:24.075 --> 00:33:28.785
in which that there are money that is
like US dollars or fiat in general,

00:33:29.055 --> 00:33:34.425
that enable people to exit or to
quit communities and move somewhere.

00:33:34.485 --> 00:33:38.745
it provides mobility,
which is good, but also there are

00:33:39.439 --> 00:33:44.719
other kinds of money that bonds
people. In the small town

00:33:44.719 --> 00:33:48.379
that I used to live in, the
Garden City, the Garden City tried

00:33:48.379 --> 00:33:50.959
to issue their community money,

00:33:51.050 --> 00:33:53.060
and it worked for a while.

00:33:53.479 --> 00:33:55.909
But of course using pre-web

00:33:56.320 --> 00:34:02.470
tools, it's very difficult to scale it to
the kind of communities across regions.

00:34:02.620 --> 00:34:06.160
Ultimately, it would only work
for people who almost meet day to

00:34:06.160 --> 00:34:10.239
day, and that speaks to the kind
of tightly bonded community like

00:34:10.239 --> 00:34:12.790
churches and so on that you mentioned.

00:34:12.850 --> 00:34:17.080
So it seems like one of the
financial incentives could be, uh,

00:34:17.110 --> 00:34:19.179
building sort of community money.

00:34:19.755 --> 00:34:25.094
Plural money that is programmable,
and enable people to join,

00:34:25.094 --> 00:34:29.924
the causes and rest assure that
they will be supported by like-minded

00:34:29.924 --> 00:34:34.154
people and communities on the endeavors
that they care about,

00:34:34.154 --> 00:34:39.270
without having to prepare a lot
fiat to enable them

00:34:39.270 --> 00:34:43.109
to quit any day because people at the
end of day understand that they're,

00:34:43.109 --> 00:34:45.299
they're in it for any number of years.

00:34:45.659 --> 00:34:49.739
So I think that's a quite
compelling alternative to the

00:34:49.739 --> 00:34:54.069
kind of individual entrepreneurial,
global nomad story.

00:34:54.149 --> 00:34:58.859
Glen: And I ultimately think,
money is a very simplistic

00:34:59.310 --> 00:35:01.290
solution to a very complex problem.

00:35:02.190 --> 00:35:05.180
And I think that complex
problem is that

00:35:05.265 --> 00:35:08.820
we have social relationships that
are deep and important to us.

00:35:09.450 --> 00:35:14.670
And yet, we also seek out
relationships across diversity that

00:35:14.675 --> 00:35:18.960
cross over the boundaries of those
intimate social relationships.

00:35:19.770 --> 00:35:21.280
Money is a shortcut to that.

00:35:21.705 --> 00:35:24.225
It's sort of a one shot answer,

00:35:24.465 --> 00:35:28.005
like, okay, so now let's just leapfrog
to this completely universal thing that

00:35:28.005 --> 00:35:29.115
I can use with anyone in the world.

00:35:29.775 --> 00:35:31.695
But there's other approaches
to doing that.

00:35:31.995 --> 00:35:34.215
They're just kind of
computationally more intensive.

00:35:34.215 --> 00:35:39.404
So, there's friends of friends
relationships, that can connect

00:35:39.404 --> 00:35:43.485
you — as we know from the literature
on six degrees of separation — to

00:35:43.485 --> 00:35:44.805
just about anyone on the planet.

00:35:45.525 --> 00:35:48.225
Now, finding that six degree
of separation connection,

00:35:49.335 --> 00:35:53.069
at least historically, has been complex.

00:35:53.460 --> 00:35:57.480
It's been beyond the computational
capacity of most governance systems,

00:35:57.960 --> 00:36:04.230
but, TCP/IP has shown that
it can be traversed, at least

00:36:04.230 --> 00:36:05.790
for sending packets of information.

00:36:06.660 --> 00:36:11.700
and if we learn how to use that to
send packets of trust, packets of love,

00:36:12.029 --> 00:36:16.770
packets of friendship and commitment,
and not just packets of information,

00:36:17.490 --> 00:36:25.110
then perhaps the role of this
shortcut can be reduced, and the

00:36:25.110 --> 00:36:32.220
role of community can be enhanced
with the help of assistive technology.

00:36:36.870 --> 00:36:38.730
Audrey: Well, that's an excellent vision.

00:36:39.420 --> 00:36:43.080
Because there's only so many Slido questions,
因為有著太多的Slido提問了。

00:36:43.080 --> 00:36:45.120
I believe we're done for today.
我門今天的內容就到這邊。

00:36:45.150 --> 00:36:49.440
However, Glen will be
online right after airing this
然而，葛倫

00:36:49.440 --> 00:36:53.520
pre-recording and answer your
more Slido questions live.

00:36:53.819 --> 00:36:56.730
But until next time...
Live long and prosper.