General Will 2.0 and Audrey Tan

from Increase resolution on the concept of deliberation General Will 2.0 and Audrey Tan

In this context and Audrey Tan’s thoughts?

The ideas of Audrey Tan share some similarities in the context of Hiroki Azuma’s “General Will 2.0” in terms of participation in democracy and public policy through the use of digital technology. However, there are some differences in their approaches and backgrounds.

• 1.participatory digital democracy.
  • As Taiwan’s Digital Minister, Audrey Tan has leveraged technology to create mechanisms for citizens to actively participate in politics and public policy. Her efforts are epitomized by platforms such as “vTaiwan” and “Join. These platforms allow citizens to exchange opinions, debate, and participate in consensus building about policies online.
  • On the other hand, “General Will 2.0” aims to form the will of the whole without conscious debate through the use of unconscious behavioral data. In contrast, Audrey Tan’s philosophy seeks to realize “participatory democracy” that promotes the “conscious” opinions and participation of citizens through technology and reflects them in policy making. To this end, while Hiroki Azuma’s “General Will 2.0” emphasizes “unconscious data,” Audrey Tan emphasizes “conscious participation” and “cooperation.”
    • Sure thing - Audrey Tan, except for the voting.政治参加の方法を増やすことをやってる
      • The Sunflower Student Movement is political participation other than voting in the first place.

2. deliberation and consensus building

   • Audrey Tan’s philosophy is colored by elements of Habermas.-style deliberative democracy. vTaiwan’s process allows citizens to contribute their opinions and express sympathy or disagreement, seeking a shared and near-consensus form for the various opinions of society. One of the tools, “Polis,” facilitates discussion to find common ground while mitigating conflicts and working toward consensus.
   • In contrast, “General Will 2.0” is critical of consensus building through deliberation, and rather seeks consensus building through data without the deliberative process. Audrey Tan’s approach to deliberation has different aspects from the unconscious data utilization of “General Will 2.0” because it values citizens’ conscious expression of opinions and consensus based on them.

3. technology transparency and citizen empowerment

   • Audrey Tan emphasizes technology transparency and citizen empowerment. In her vision, technology should support citizens’ political participation and be a tool for ensuring credibility in a transparent process. The idea is to activate interaction between citizens and government through digital technology and to create policy through dialogue.
   • In the case of “General Will 2.0,” since the overall will is ascertained through the accumulation and analysis of data, the emphasis is on a “non-interactive and non-conscious” approach in which data automatically extracts will rather than individual citizens participating directly in discussions. In this respect, it differs significantly from Audrey Tan’s philosophy, which emphasizes “voluntary participation and empowerment of citizens.

4. utilization of collective knowledge and social inclusiveness

   • Audrey Tan aims to reflect diverse voices in policy by harnessing the power of “collective intelligence. To this end, her approach is characterized by the use of technology to gather the opinions of individual citizens and reflect that diversity in policy. Her approach also values transparency and openness in the political process in order to increase social inclusion.
   • In the context of “General Will 2.0,” the idea is that unconscious data shape the will of the whole, and rather than diversity of opinion, the accumulated data itself is seen as reflecting the will of the whole. Therefore, it differs from Audrey Tan’s approach of “collective knowledge” and inclusive participation of citizens, which is characterized by consensus building through objective analysis of data.

In short, Audrey Tan’s philosophy is positioned as a “participatory democracy” that utilizes digital technology to promote conscious participation and collaboration among citizens. This approach differs from Hiroki Azuma’s “General Will 2.0,” which aims at consensus building through “unconscious data,” and emphasizes conscious expression of opinions and consensus building through deliberation and dialogue. While both attempt to harness the power of technology for the sake of democracy, there are fundamental differences in the manner and process of its utilization.

next: General Will 2.0 and Glen Weyl

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/一般意志2.0とオードリー・タン using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.