How the discussion on Uber has evolved in vTaiwan

Let's look at how Pol.is has encouraged people to communicate their feelings effectively.

In the first few days, people shared strong feelings and were able to call other groups closer; the four groups quickly merged into two, with Group 1 (45%) sharing the following statement:

I think the Taipei City Government should cancel the company registration of "Taiwan Uber Company" since the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has already rejected Uber's administrative appeal.75%.

Two groups had completely different aspects:

>When I'm not in a hurry, I prefer to call Uber even if there are lots of cabs 77%.

Because Pol.is displays statements in order of highest approval rating, participants brainstormed statements that would appeal to a larger audience. 1 week later, Group 1 toned down their original statement somewhat:

> I think the MIC is responsible for actively outlawing unlicensed passenger vehicles. 87%.

On the other hand, Group 2 was accepted across groups, rising 2%, from 54% to 56%:

>Currently, the only way for traditional cabs to survive is to join a cab fleet. This is not due to government policy, but UberX has overturned this unwritten rule. I think that's pretty amazing, 93%!

Pol.is indicates the degree to which the sentiments shared by each group are accepted by the other groups, thereby encouraging participants to post more comprehensive statements, such as this one by Irvin Chen, which appears on the "Majority Opinion" tab:

>The government should use this opportunity to demand that the cab industry improve its management and quality control systems so that drivers and riders enjoy the same quality of service as Uber. (95% for all groups)

In the fourth week, participants provide a consistent set of reflections, expectations, and suggestions, successfully forming a coherent agenda for stakeholders to respond to.

(DeepL)

This tool is one of the best ways to rid ourselves of the "mind virus" of ideology that is hacking away at our political debate and diminishing our ability to work together as a society.

Discussing politics on the internet almost never works because the conversation can turn ugly within minutes with personal accusations and anonymous misbehavior. the secret sauce that pol.is used to avoid this was so simple that it eliminated replies.

Engaging citizens online is very different from actually translating their voices into legislation. Most open government initiatives fall into the former category and only gather public opinion for editorial purposes. The appeal of the vTaiwan program, however, is that it utilizes pol.is in a binding manner. The government agreed either to reflect the consensus in the National Assembly or to provide a point-by-point explanation of why the consensus point is not (yet) feasible.

Here's the thing, the government's side has promised to pay upfront, which creates an incentive for participants to cooperate.

Taiwan is quite unique among developed countries in that "the Internet and democracy have evolved together, spread together, and integrated together," as Audrey Tan, the country's current Minister of Digital Affairs, has described it. Freedom of the press and the spread of personal computers were realized in the same year, 1986. Similarly, dot-com sites and elections came into existence at about the same time in Taiwan in 1996.

vTaiwan used Facebook ads to draw the public into the discussion on pol.is, and then used the results to assemble a discussion with stakeholders, all live-streamed to the public.

Hacking the mind virus

---