TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) is a global set of conferences owned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, formed to disseminate "ideas worth spreading."

Forgot_my_password_again: whats TED?

/serious

Here, let me google that for you.

Bob16: The really funny part was that this blew up in TEDs face to such a degree this guy went around whining and crying and screaming "CENSORSHIP!" so much that they had to release a statement to try to maintain some shred of credibility shut the mouthbreathers who actually buy his bullshiat up.

FTFY

Hopefully such divisiveness and contoversy will be avoided by the time of the next TED talk topic, "New Diet Peach Mango Tea from Lipton is Awesome," by the CEO of Unilever.

HeartBurnKid: Bob16: The really funny part was that this blew up in TEDs face to such a degree this guy went around whining and crying and screaming "CENSORSHIP!" so much that they had to release a statement to try to maintain some shred of credibility shut the mouthbreathers who actually buy his bullshiat up.

FTFY

Well, that's new media for you. When you see bullshiat trending on twitter, you immediately react. They are a technology centered company, that has people come in every month and yap for hours about how awesome social media is for recognizing specific signals from the consumer, they really have no excuse, and had they recognized what this was right off the bat, like everyone who has any farking clue what the internet is would have, then there would be 0 issues.

ablank: I thought this talk was better thought out than that idiot who had a rambling talk about beating a patent troll.

That would have been a good story but whoever organized it clearly drank too much Heineken.

Yep. There are so many horrible lectures on TED that mediocrity is an improvement by comparison.

And again, fark looks like reddit's dimwitted brother...

KickahaOta: I've heard plenty of standing ovations given for truly mediocre presentations. No contradiction there. Sometimes the audience just wants to reward the effort rather than the result, or sometimes they're just being polite.

This has precedent. Elaine Morgan got a standing ovation after giving a 15+ minute speech supporting the aquatic ape hypothesis. Then again, as awful as that talk was, it was still put up for public viewing...
=Smidge=

SmackLT: He does make some good points, but yeah, I've seen some much better TED talks

Here's the talk referred to in the article

That sucked as a tax policy talk. While I agree with his point, he did nothing to really back it up.

Nem Wan: DarnoKonrad: TED didn't cite it's mediocrity, they cited its supposed "partisanship." Which it clearly is not.

TED looks like Koman coming out of this.

It's premature to make that judgment without evaluating the substance of all the other talks TED rejected. The fact that this one talk was given by a person able and willing to deploy a professional-grade tantrum if he didn't get his way does not make his talk or its rejection special among all the talks not chosen.



There's nothing partisan about it. Let's just assume the talk was boring and his data shoddy -- let's just assume it's a train wreck of a talk, that still doesn't defend the primary thesis offered by TED as "explicitly partisan." It makes very little sense to cite "partisanship" even at that when they have actual partisan content, like the talk by Jonathan Haidt, which was both dishonest and offensive in its loose use of stereotypes to illustrate his dubious thesis.

I'll admit the talk wasn't enamoring, but it sure wasn't some DNC pep talk.

It takes a whole lot of steel to be invited to TED, speak at TED, you know, the event where only elite is invited to listen to what you have to say, and then claim censorship.
I also want to be invited to an elitist influencer event on a subject of my choosing and then biatch about how said organizers are keeping me down.

scottydoesntknow: Bob16:
Bwahahaha. Don't look now but you just showed the equivalency between this and all the other TED lectures. So the there is no reason to censor it.

Bob16: Actually this is another good example of the complete incompetence of the one percent ( who sponser TED ). The last thing they want is to see this lecture get wide exposure. Then they go about trying to censor it and it gets more exposure than any other TED lecture and they end up looking like assholes. Way to go geniuses.

Bob16: Lost Thought 00: THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

If you check out who sponsers TED you see it is the one percent. I'm real surprised a bunch of butt hurt one percenters tried to censor a lecture that dared to challenge their delusions of self importance. Also note the lecture was so mediocre it got a standing ovation.

I think we found Hanauer's Fark handle!

Bwahahaha. Wait the crack detectives at fark already "know" that I'm Linux yes. Could it be that all that blow has finally caught up with the local Sherlocks. If you guys were really on your game you would have realized I'm Clark Kent. Mild mannered reporter for a major metropolitain newspaper and I can't find a goddamn phone booth anymore.

This guy has a net worth of one billion dollars. He can afford a printing press. He can afford to pay for full page ads in every major newspaper in the country. And every minor newspaper. And every penny shopper in every Podunk in the country. He doesn't need TED to publicize his message. He wants validation that he's a good person, and getting featured on TED would do that. But TED was absolutely right about his talk. It really wasn't very good.

By the third sentence of his talk, he was characterizing both Republicans and Democrats unfavorably. That makes it partisan, whether you agree with his characterization or not. Within the first minute, he was making arguments about marginal tax rates, while presenting no compelling data at all.

His talk was crappy. Every slide was labeled "job creators." He didn't produce a single piece of data that was new or interesting. He didn't put old data together in interesting ways.

For all his talk trying to identify with the common man, he's just just another rich guy who thinks he's the smartest person in the room, and uses his wealth and power to force others to do as he wishes. So at least his talk proved one point.

I watch them occasionally on netflix, overall not a bad series.

Voiceofreason01: The talk was needlessly partisan

The talk only mentions the parties once, and only in criticizing their inability to challenge conventional wisdom. How anyone can construe that as "partisan" is beyond me.

Annoyance: And again, fark looks like reddit's dimwitted brother...

At least Fark handles the Paultards with the scorn they deserve.

enry: Annoyance: And again, fark looks like reddit's dimwitted brother...

At least Fark handles the Paultards with the scorn they deserve.

on reddit, they get their own waterfountains.

I love the smell of one percenter apologist butt hurt in the morning.

Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Lost Thought 00: THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

If you check out who sponsers TED you see it is the one percent. I'm real surprised a bunch of butt hurt one percenters tried to censor a lecture that dared to challenge their delusions of self importance. Also note the lecture was so mediocre it got a standing ovation.

Every speech at a TED conference gets a standing ovation.

Bwahahaha. Don't look now but you just showed the equivalency between this and all the other TED lectures. So the there is no reason to censor it.

After all the speeches you are given a comment card where you rate it compared to the other speeches you heard and leave feedback for the presenter. Apparently that is used to decide which ones make it up on their home page.

Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Lost Thought 00: THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

If you check out who sponsers TED you see it is the one percent. I'm real surprised a bunch of butt hurt one percenters tried to censor a lecture that dared to challenge their delusions of self importance. Also note the lecture was so mediocre it got a standing ovation.

Every speech at a TED conference gets a standing ovation.

Bwahahaha. Don't look now but you just showed the equivalency between this and all the other TED lectures. So the there is no reason to censor it.

After all the speeches you are given a comment card where you rate it compared to the other speeches you heard and leave feedback for the presenter. Apparently that is used to decide which ones make it up on their home page.

Please try to keep up. Even TED isn't using that lame excuse and that has been pointed out several times already.

RowdyRough: Here, let me google that for you.

that wasn't as helpful explaining it as you might have thought.

DarnoKonrad: TED didn't cite it's mediocrity, they cited its supposed "partisanship." Which it clearly is not.

TED looks like Koman coming out of this.

Know how I know you didn't read the article?

It's explained, and they have a link to the video. They immediately responded to the backlash, which isn't quite how Komen behaved.

And they've posted videos on the same topic in the past.

If they're censoring, they suck at it.

FTFA:

At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media.

We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed.

So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets.

And a non-story about a talk not being chosen, because we believed we had better ones, somehow got turned into a scandal about censorship. Which is like saying that if I call the New York Times and they turn down my request to publish an op-ed by me, they're censoring me.

For the record, pretty much everyone at TED, including me, worries a great deal about the issue of rising inequality. We've carried talks on it in the past, like this one from Richard Wilkinson. We'd carry more in the future if someone can find a way of framing the issue that is convincing and avoids being needlessly partisan in tone.

They decided not to post the video, and the speaker showed that he's a tool by crying "Help, help, I'm being repressed."

Is TED now required to post EVERY talk they record? That's a great way to ensure that we have to wade through a lot of dreck - or to ensure that TED says "Fark it" and shuts down.

Having just watched the video, I'd hardly say it was bad. He was very succinct, cogent, and the audience was definitely receptive.

I'm guessing the TED folks didn't like the content.

Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Lost Thought 00: THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

If you check out who sponsers TED you see it is the one percent. I'm real surprised a bunch of butt hurt one percenters tried to censor a lecture that dared to challenge their delusions of self importance. Also note the lecture was so mediocre it got a standing ovation.

Every speech at a TED conference gets a standing ovation.

Bwahahaha. Don't look now but you just showed the equivalency between this and all the other TED lectures. So the there is no reason to censor it.

After all the speeches you are given a comment card where you rate it compared to the other speeches you heard and leave feedback for the presenter. Apparently that is used to decide which ones make it up on their home page.

Please try to keep up. Even TED isn't using that lame excuse and that has been pointed out several times already.

I"m not saying they are, just that is how they did it at the speeches I went to. I don't care either way whether this speech made it to the mainsite or not since I agree with everything he said but it didn't really teach me anything new.

Here's a newsflash for ya TED. Life is political. Trying to claim that you don't want your lectures to have any political implications is like saying I'll have a big mac without the meat

spongeboob: mitEj: Lost Thought 00: THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

No it does not.
The first Amendment means you can speak. It does not mean I need to listen or provide you with a megaphone.

I think that was the poster's point. Hence the centering, underlining and bold text. Fark really needs a sarcasm font or tag or something.

⸮ ... I guess that one never caught on

/sure it is an irony mark but it could work.

Wow, that dude really likes to remind everyone how rich he is.

Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Lost Thought 00: THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

If you check out who sponsers TED you see it is the one percent. I'm real surprised a bunch of butt hurt one percenters tried to censor a lecture that dared to challenge their delusions of self importance. Also note the lecture was so mediocre it got a standing ovation.

Every speech at a TED conference gets a standing ovation.

Bwahahaha. Don't look now but you just showed the equivalency between this and all the other TED lectures. So the there is no reason to censor it.

After all the speeches you are given a comment card where you rate it compared to the other speeches you heard and leave feedback for the presenter. Apparently that is used to decide which ones make it up on their home page.

Please try to keep up. Even TED isn't using that lame excuse and that has been pointed out several times already.

I"m not saying they are, just that is how they did it at the speeches I went to. I don't care either way whether this speech made it to the mainsite or not since I agree with everything he said but it didn't really teach me anything new.

Wow you went to a TED lecture. Can I have your autograph.

rufus-t-firefly: Know how I know you didn't read the article?


I read it yesterday, and the very first rationale given is the one about partisanship. Which is nonsense if you watch the video -- and other TED talks for that matter that are highly partisan, like the dishonest Jonathan Haidt one. And that rationale is the one I'm addressing.

The rest of it reads like backtracking on that claim IMHO.

Actually the lecture wasn't political enough. The idea that you could lecture on inequality and avoid politics is really delusional. Especially after 30 years of republicans waging class war. If that lecture were to be truly accurate 70% of it would have been an attack on what republicans have done to exacerbate inequality.

Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Lost Thought 00: THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

If you check out who sponsers TED you see it is the one percent. I'm real surprised a bunch of butt hurt one percenters tried to censor a lecture that dared to challenge their delusions of self importance. Also note the lecture was so mediocre it got a standing ovation.

Every speech at a TED conference gets a standing ovation.

Bwahahaha. Don't look now but you just showed the equivalency between this and all the other TED lectures. So the there is no reason to censor it.

After all the speeches you are given a comment card where you rate it compared to the other speeches you heard and leave feedback for the presenter. Apparently that is used to decide which ones make it up on their home page.

Please try to keep up. Even TED isn't using that lame excuse and that has been pointed out several times already.

I"m not saying they are, just that is how they did it at the speeches I went to. I don't care either way whether this speech made it to the mainsite or not since I agree with everything he said but it didn't really teach me anything new.

Wow you went to a TED lecture. Can I have your autograph.

Sure thing, I'll just go ahead and make it out to Mr. Asshat.

Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Carth: Bob16: Lost Thought 00: THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

If you check out who sponsers TED you see it is the one percent. I'm real surprised a bunch of butt hurt one percenters tried to censor a lecture that dared to challenge their delusions of self importance. Also note the lecture was so mediocre it got a standing ovation.

Every speech at a TED conference gets a standing ovation.

Bwahahaha. Don't look now but you just showed the equivalency between this and all the other TED lectures. So the there is no reason to censor it.

After all the speeches you are given a comment card where you rate it compared to the other speeches you heard and leave feedback for the presenter. Apparently that is used to decide which ones make it up on their home page.

Please try to keep up. Even TED isn't using that lame excuse and that has been pointed out several times already.

I"m not saying they are, just that is how they did it at the speeches I went to. I don't care either way whether this speech made it to the mainsite or not since I agree with everything he said but it didn't really teach me anything new.

Wow you went to a TED lecture. Can I have your autograph.

Sure thing, I'll just go ahead and make it out to Mr. Asshat.

Looks like somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed. Is everything alright at home ?

I don't do talks....too busy reading FARK comments

So, what TED needs to do is publish everything else on a separate YT channel set to be unsearchable (I think that's one of the private things). Then people could link to the videos directly but it would never be part of the TED page or feed.

The content exists. You might not care for it but someone else might.

DarnoKonrad: There's nothing partisan about it. Let's just assume the talk was boring and his data shoddy -- let's just assume it's a train wreck of a talk, that still doesn't defend the primary thesis offered by TED as "explicitly partisan." It makes very little sense to cite "partisanship" even at that when they have actual partisan content, like the talk by Jonathan Haidt, which was both dishonest and offensive in its loose use of stereotypes to illustrate his dubious thesis.

The primiray thesis I got was they post one a day, and this wasn't good enough for that.

Well we "know" what really is the motivation behind this attack on our nations sacred and honorable atlases from which all blessings originate. This billionaire is just jealous of rich people.

Forgot_my_password_again: whats TED?

/serious

TED talks are where someone who thinks they know a lot about a topic, but actually doesn't, gets up and tries to "educate" or "make aware" the "uneducated" masses on the topic. Generally the content is stuff you saw in an Internet blog or discussion board argument 5-10 years ago, or is factually or logically inaccurate, or both.

See, for instance, Drew's talk.

Carth: Sure thing, I'll just go ahead and make it out to Mr. Asshat.

Best. Response. Ever.

SmackLT: He does make some good points, but yeah, I've seen some much better TED talks

Here's the talk referred to in the article

Booooorrrrriiiiinngggg

What a crybaby. Man up. They didn't like you. Grow some balls already. Fark entitled American twats.

RowdyRough: Voiceofreason01: DarnoKonrad: TED didn't cite it's mediocrity, they cited its supposed "partisanship." Which it clearly is not.

You watch a lot of Fox News don't you? The talk was needlessly partisan, light on facts, and was presented with a competence that probably comes with spending years addressing rooms of shareholders and venture capitalists, but it lacked excitement and energy; it was mediocre.

/why would TED want censor this? Is it so hard to believe that they simply declined to publish it because they thought it wasn't very good?

I spent most of my years at community college watching a ted talk every night, from 2005-2009. They have a ton of "mediocre" talks, they have a ton of "light on facts" talks, hell, I've seen more than my share of downright strange talks from ted. There's no reason why this talk and/or all the talks shouldn't just be posted. Youtube covers the bandwidth, there's no reason not to. This whole thing just made ted look terrible, everything from the allegations of censorship, which would have never come to pass if they just posted everything, to the eventual budging with loud complaint that we're reading right now. They'd have been better off just posting the vid 5 seconds after this moron started trending, and being done with it, there at least would be far less people watching the video.

I haven't watched nearly as many TED talks as you, but it seems eminently reasonable for a group that puts out talks to use its editorial sense to decide which talks it puts up under its name. If you put up everything, including crackpots, crappy talks, and mediocre talks, it will damage your organization's name and reputation.
Most of the TED talks I've seen have been either entertaining or educational. A few have been not very good, several have been great. TED-Ed has some great stuff, too. This one on the atom is mind-blowing.

nickerj1: TED talks are where someone who thinks they know a lot about a topic, but actually doesn't, gets up and tries to "educate" or "make aware" the "uneducated" masses on the topic. Generally the content is stuff you saw in an Internet blog or discussion board argument 5-10 years ago, or is factually or logically inaccurate, or both.

See, for instance, Drew's talk.

thanks, I'd never heard of it before fark.

seems odd people put up with it, like some flash mob with powerpoint.