Its amazing what a little truth sheds on an otherwise perfect angry mob. After hearing from both sides I hope those who accused TED of censorship will be kind enough to apologise.
TED and inequality: The real story
11–20 of 202 posts
Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#12The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…
>> "Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party." This would imply that climate change would also be off limits at TED, which it isn't.
It's fine as long as you don't name any political party by name I think.
Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#13Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#14The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…
I think you have it the wrong way around. It's not that this topic isn't up for public debate, but rather that the talk was part of a debate that was already highly politicized and TED doesn't want to get into that. Once the politicos see you as a good platform from which to shout their message, you will find yourself swamped by people who just want to yell party lines at each other. If you want to remain independent of party politics, you have to keep those people away.
This is also why I'm of the opinion that Internet forums which are not explicitly about politics should explicitly ban most political discussion. Otherwise the loud partisans will eventually drown out everything else. (Remember a few years ago when it came out that there was a huge conservative voting bloc on Digg downvoting anything posted by members they suspected of being liberals, even if it was non-political? You don't want those people around.)
This isn't to say that topics one party or another might happen to like better should be off-limits, but that you should be very careful when approaching those topics not to play to the political aspects of the topic. It sounds to me like this is what TED suggests as well.
Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#15What's up with the editorializing of the title? If you're going to post stuff that's on the edge of being too political for HN I think leaving the headline intact is the best approach.
edit it's been fixed, but for reference the original title had something in it about "astroturfing in action"
Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same guy who said "I dream of a world where reality and truthiness can be one."- Stephen Colbert
Jon Stewart said the other 'liberal/reality' quote
Did he say it first? The first page of Google hits is covered with Colbert saying it at the Correspondents' Dinner in 2006.
Edit: here it is, "I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#17Released video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
"This idea is an oracle of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats." Clearly against bi-partisan and not pro-democrat.
Very bad move by TED. Also, the quality of many TED presentations is a joke so they can't pull that card.
Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#18The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…
Points made in an explicitly partisan manner are inherently less valuable to anyone other than the party being supported.
How many TED talks revolve around global warming, despite the fact that the right treats it not just as alarmism, but a liberal hoax? TED doesn't seem to be rushing to pull those down.
I can understand their reluctance to give Fox News ammunition to smear the TED brand. But it was the parties who chose to politicize ideas and issues which should belong to all humanity. Whatever happened to respectfully listening to people you disagree with?
Getting locked up for speaking your mind is only one way for free speech to be stifled; another is to convince people to self-censor for the sake of their reputation, and whether he admits it to himself or not, this is exactly what Chris Anderson is doing. And alas, in today's media-political landscape, one is hard-pressed to find organizations and individuals for whom this is not the norm.
Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#19The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…
There is a difference between being controversial and being partisan. The talk directly calls out Republicans. Based on what Chris Anderson said, they would welcome a talk on that controversial subject, but it couldn't call out political parties.
Re: TED and inequality: The real story
#20The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…
Yeah, their response said exactly what I assumed had happened happened. They, like everyone else building a brand, are trying to erase the truly antagonistic dynamics of modern culture and worship some mythical conflict-free land of bipartisanship and kittens, where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence.
That myth is what TED is selling. Not truth, not even a better world, just a world where we can believe ourselves to be better people.