11 ms·

TED and inequality: The real story

471 points by Duff 14y ago

nkurz 14y ago
The 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 and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US. Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party." (attributed to Chris Anderson) Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is?
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Points made in an explicitly partisan manner are inherently less valuable to anyone other than the party being supported.
  - debacle 14y ago
    "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
    - sp332 14y ago
      The same guy who said "I dream of a world where reality and truthiness can be one."- Stephen Colbert
      - emehrkay 14y ago
        Jon Stewart said the other 'liberal/reality' quote
        sp332 14y ago
        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."
        gee_totes 14y ago
        'Reality has a well known Google bias'
        emehrkay 14y ago
        This is what I get for trying to be smart on the internet
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - jerf 14y ago
      Are actually making that claim, or is that an attempt to archly demonstrate the point being made? Because if you're seriously making that claim as others had, I can barely count the number of fallacies and debate style errors it contains with both hands. If you weren't trying to provide an example of how explicitly partisan debates can just shut down all conversation, you still did a good job.
      - debacle 14y ago
        I actually posted it initially without the double quotes, but then realized I would see a lot of posts like yours so edited it very quickly to add the double quotes in.
  - pohl 14y ago
    The talk actually presents an idea that is, to some extent, a testable scientific economic claim: that the wealth of middle-class plays an important role in a feedback loop that creates jobs. The Republican party should find this insight to be valuable, since their stated goal is job creation, right? Why might they not want to learn something about the process they are working so hard to enable?
  - tokenizer 14y ago
    Agreed. He made no effort to deny he or others who operate with TED have liberal minded ideas. He also gives a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation to the situation and in my opinion does nothing to deter my view of TED in any shape or form. And to people who make this out to be a US political issue, income equality is a global issue, and always have been. It's not the issue being brushed off but the quality of the argument judged by TED. But that said it's a really good talk.
  - lukifer 14y ago
    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.
    - scott_s 14y ago
      Based on what Chris Anderson said, if a talk about global warming made direct statements about political parties, they would reject it. That's the difference between controversial and partisan.
    - praptak 14y ago
      I believe this particular decision was not about the message but about the way it was delivered. My hypothesis is that the same topic presented in a wikipediish NPOV style would fare much better. And symmetrically if you spiced a talk about climate change with jabs at replublicans it would share the fate of the talk in question.
      - lukifer 14y ago
        Admittedly, the one reference he made to parties at the beginning was unnecessary (somehow, I hadn't even heard it). But he isn't calling out any party; he is calling out a particular policy, and the way of thinking that pre-dates it, that he feels is counter-productive. There is no way to criticize the ideas he does without being "political". To put the shoe on the other foot: let's say someone had data which demonstrated that welfare and affirmative action are bad for the people they purport to help (just an example, I'm not making a case for or against either). How could one make that argument in a neutral, non-partisan way, when those issues have been politicized to death for decades? You couldn't. You'd have to either state your case bluntly and take the heat, or shut up and go away. Though the talk could definitely have been better (more data, please), I'm glad the speaker chose the former, and I think he made the best attempt possible at being neutral.
- runako 14y ago
  >> "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.
  - grimboy 14y ago
    It's fine as long as you don't name any political party by name I think.
    - OzzyB 14y ago
      Unless the lead spokesperson is a leading political figure.
- chc 14y ago
  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.
- scott_s 14y ago
  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.
  - pauljonas 14y ago
    But that is the problem, in a nutshell. We don't want to "call out political parties", so we will ignore the truth that one of the political parties has deviated so far off course, in its anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-equality pursuit. But let us not speak of it.
    - scott_s 14y ago
      Attacking a political party invites various cognitive biases related to tribalism - both for the people who like and dislike that party. It makes it more difficult for an audience to evaluate your arguments on their own merit.
      - pauljonas 14y ago
        This is an affliction by which people muddle objectivity with neutrality. One can adopt a neutral (NPOV as they say in Wikipedia land) vantage point, yet be terribly biased, even if it is simply confined to what is filtered out. One can be biased to an intellectual (or political) plank, yet be objective in evaluating arguments and evidence. Yes, tribalism can induce such ills as well as invoke cognitive dissonance, but it is not a default setting.
    - chc 14y ago
      Go ahead and speak of it. Nobody's stopping you. It just won't get you on TED's website.
    - fleitz 14y ago
      No it isn't the problem, at least not according to TED, TEDs mission is not to spread the gospel about political parties. Want to spread the truth about Republicans and Democrats? Go on CNN. That's what it's there for, you can shout about how Republicans are anti-intellectual and Democrats are communists all day long on CNN, however TED doesn't want to be CNN. There's a big difference between saying Republicans are anti-intellectual and saying anti-intellectualism is bad for the following reasons. TED is all for the latter and completely against the former.
- roguecoder 14y ago
  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.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    > They (...) worship some mythical conflict-free land of bipartisanship and kittens, where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence. Because that is how the world should be like and they have a mission to make it real. It's not a myth. It's a goal.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence Welcome to the world of science.
- batista 14y ago
  >Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is? When money and power is involved, you don't get to be independent in the US (or a lot of other places for that matter). You have the right to free speech as long as you talk for inconsequential issues, if you talk for anything else you are labeled a "partisan" (that goes for both republicans and democrats, and even every other stance). You are of course free to raise very important issues for society as a whole, but not in a way that implies that the way the power/financial system works is bad in toto -- the best you can get away with is "inefficient". That is, you have free speech as long as you don't use it for real political causes. Any other partial view is allowed (gay or anti-gay, abortion or pro-life, etc...).
  - smsm42 14y ago
    There are many politicians and public figures that say exactly what you just said - that the way the financial system works is bad (actually, IIRC, no other than Obama himself reiterated that talking on the news about huge Chase loss) - and the way the political system works is bad (they even try to organize third parties and independent candidates, which inevitably result in pathetic failure at the polls) - so making it sound as it's somehow topic that no one dares to talk about for the fear of all-powerful 1% is baloney. This topic is talked about far and wide. You can publish any opinion, and even for the most outrageous ones, you get a pretty good chance for your 15 minutes of fame - actually, if it's outrageous, your chances are higher, TV shows need ratings and outrage means notoriety means ratings. Of course, it's one thing to talk about everything being screwed up and quite another - having any practical recipe of how to fix it and being able to convince enough people to follow you. Words are wind, you know. Allowed is one thing, effectual is another. But not because there's an evil 1% conspiracy - but because mainstream is mainstream for a reason, changing people's opinions is very hard.
- dclowd9901 14y ago
  If you read the transcript, you get the distinct sense that what you're listening to isn't intellectual discovery based on empirical data. It reads like a speech from a political candidate. It truly is not TED worthy, and this is from someone who fully believes every word that man uttered. TED is about sharing knowledge. Raw, unbiased, unignorable knowledge. Talks that are based entirely on anecdote and talking points have no place in the discussion. After reading the transcript, I firmly believe they made the right choice. And it could simply be that the ambiguous nature of the study of economics prevents it from being an approached topic on TED, which is unfortunate, but I don't believe for one second they blacklist anything based on controversy alone.
  - jellicle 14y ago
    His talk would have been better had it referenced the numerous studies showing that more unequal countries have worse results across the board. However, 3 minutes is an extremely short period of time - no one else speaking at TED is laboring under the requirement to fully document everything they are saying in a 3 minute speech.
  - nkurz 14y ago
    I haven't heard or read this talk, and presume that Anderson made a correct editorial decision regarding its merits. My focus is on the statement "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US." I'm not arguing that Ted should be pressured into publicizing this talk. But with great admiration for Ted, I think their approach to politicized topics bears further discussion. I'm stunned to think that an international organization should find it less desirable to broach certain topics due to the timing of a US election.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      No one has said they will avoid any topic at any time. Anderson has said they will avoid overtly partisan talks during an election year. You can talk about the topic, Anderson just won't promote if if you do it in a partisan manner.
- fleitz 14y ago
  I think it's sort of like the hacker news policy, don't post stuff that people can read about elsewhere. If you talk to most people involved in a particular issue (eg. not politicians) they tend to have views that diverge from the party line, when a talk lines up perfectly with a particular party it comes off more like talking points than an engaging topic. Imagine a talk on states rights that comes out against abortion and for the war on drugs. Sounds to me like Republican crap rather than an intelligent debate on the separation of powers in government. I think this is what TED is trying to avoid, they're all for an intelligent debate on separation of powers, but against spewing republican or democratic talking points.
rexreed 14y ago
Maybe I'm politically tone deaf, but the talk didn't seem particularly partisan at all. Sure, it had a particular perspective more in alignment with one party than another, but wouldn't this talk be just as relevant in India and the UK as it is in the US, and in which case, not particularly partisan at all? Don't all TED talks have some bias to one perspective on the world or philosophy or another? I don't get why there's such furor over this.
- 46Bit 14y ago
  The problem here I suspect is that there are sensible bases for the core tenets of different political points of view, and they end up being stifled because of it.
klochner 14y ago
If true, the aggressively planned PR campaign indicates that this was more than just a politically-sensitive topic, but rather a politically-motivated talk: He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us . . . TED should allow sensitive topics, but to allow others to use TED manipulatively as a pawn in the larger political debate subverts their mission and damages their credibility.
- daniel_solano 14y ago
  Whether or not the talk was politically motivated, if this article is correct about what the speaker did as a result of rejection, the speaker is an attention-seeking demagogue that uses threats and deception for self-promotion.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    ...or, the speaker is simply passionate about a topic that he believes needs to be discussed as openly as possible. Aren't you now committing the same mistake of guessing the speaker's motivations as everyone who criticized TED?
    - daniel_solano 14y ago
      Perhaps, and I accept that it is possible that the facts as stated in the article are wrong. However, if we accept them as true, the speaker: 1. Hired a PR firm in an attempt to threaten TED into publishing his talk. 2. When that failed, he misrepresented TED (by selectively quoting private correspondence) to the media in order to create the subsequent firestorm. I will accept that the speaker may be passionate about his views. However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open. The ends does not justify the means.
      - daenz 14y ago
        > However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open. How do you conclude that? The only possible dishonesty I've seen is about how the talk was handled, not the content of the talk. He seems all for open discussion of the content of the talk.
dkhenry 14y ago
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.
- roguecoder 14y ago
  "Censorship" is the wrong word, but I'll stand by my accusations of cowardliness. If what he said was an irrelevant ad hominem attack (like "Republicans smell and are ugly") I'd understand their reluctance, but it was an accurate description of the actions of a political party. By ruling such topics off limits, they are intellectually hobbling the discussions that can be had. We can not address the problems they are so enamored of without addressing the forces that have a vested interest in maintaining them. Their current position is like an agnostic who says, "well, we can never know..." when what they mean is "of course the idea of a divine being is a human invention, but if I say that some people might not like me as much." They are cowards, and I have little respect for cowards.
  - fleitz 14y ago
    Not getting into arguments with children about whether the easter bunny or santa claus are real doesn't make a person a coward it makes them intelligent. If they want to believe in those things then it's fine, I don't need to explain to them the irrationality of it, and often times it's just more fun to go along with it. You try explaining to a group of children on Christmas morning that Santa isn't real and there aren't going to be any presents this year. If instead you tell the children you will put in a good word for them with Santa Claus and then Santa Claus brings them the stuff they wanted then they'll be amazed by your pull with Santa. Think of it this way, every week 2 billion people give up 10% of their wages just so Santa's intercessors can give them a little wine and some rice paper.
spacemanaki 14y ago
What'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"
- gee_totes 14y ago
  Yeah I agree. For reference, 'astroturfing' is not what happened here. Astroturfing is when a large entity funds what looks like a grassroots, anti-establishment movement. Astroturfing is about orchestrating grassroots tactics to give the appearance of a genuine movement. None of that happened here. Instead what happend was someone posted and article to the internet, the internet got outraged, and someone else issued an apology. Same cycle that happens every day.
alecco 14y ago
Released video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI 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.
- scott_s 14y ago
  The implication is that the Republicans are wrong and the Democrats should challenge it. In other words, "Hey, Democrats, here's an argument you should use." That's partisan.
  - rexreed 14y ago
    I think that's the only sentence / segment in the whole talk that refers to one party or the other. Indeed, this talk is relevant even in countries where neither party exists. It seems a heck of a lot less partisan than what passes for news on a daily basis around these parts -- pick your cable news network of choice.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      "Less bad" != "Good"
  - tripzilch 14y ago
    What? No. As an outsider, it is yet another example that both your parties are perfectly worthless. "Hey, Democrats, here's an argument you should use" is only partisan if there was a snowflake's chance in hell that they'd actually do something. But the Big People with their arms in the puppet on the right don't want that just as little as the ones fisting the puppet on the left. Four years after replacing the Beast with the Smiler, and what have you learned? "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"
- chc 14y ago
  Many of those other bad presentations don't get posted either, so why can't they pull that card?
borism 14y ago
If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape. What's so f*cking partisan about it?
Tossrock 14y ago
Relevant pg essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html The power of PR can be pretty amazing sometimes. Especially scary given the susceptibility of the masses (ie, the Reddit firestorm).
daenz 14y ago
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. I read that as "it is controversial, so we don't want to talk about that." If some new science showed that human consciousness begins at X days after conception, would that not be aired because it is a hot-button topic too?
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  If there was enough evidence, I guess it would. What differs TED from "elsewhere in the media" is that the former has content, the latter usually not so much.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Why should he post a talk about that? You could get that information from any other source. Whereas TED is the only place I can find a talk about taking criminals bicycling, the importance of the washing machine and why we should eat insects (that one does have a few doses of liberal morality though).
  - daenz 14y ago
    The TED audience seemed to like it and think it's appropriate. Watch it to the end, half of the audience gives a standing ovation. I've seen front page TED talks that don't get standing ovations.
- Gormo 14y ago
  Science is science, and can be discussed without descending into a political debate. Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political, and have little value outside of polemic.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    > Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political I really doubt that. Given that a Google for "study of effects of inequality" returns 13 million results, a citation of the absence of relevant citations is needed.
molecule 14y ago
Going out of the way to not seem partisan has the same effect as being partisan.
- chc 14y ago
  It turns the conversation into a tribal pissing match? I don't think that's what taking an even-handed and nonconfrontational approach does.
mcantelon 14y ago
"TED: politically safe ideas worth spreading."
trotsky 14y ago
astroturfing (ˈæstrəʊˌtɜːfɪŋ) — n a PR tactic used in politics and advertising in which actors are paid to display overt and apparently spontaneous grassroots support for a particular product, policy, or event
patdennis 14y ago
As someone who writes Democratic talking points for a living, I would like to point out that the original TED talk sounded like something I would write for work. I do wholeheartedly agree with the central thesis, but if I were to put together a (nonpolitical) TED talk on the subject I would've been a lot lighter on the rhetoric and heavier on the case studies.
DavidAbrams 14y ago
"Astroturfing"? Come on, use real words that mean something.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Astroturfing is a real word with meaning that has been used since the 80s...
brudgers 14y ago
I wouldn't call this "the story behind" but rather "she said." While I find it interesting that the author does not dispute the accuracy of the emails describing the talk as too controversial, what I find troubling is that the author insinuates that hiring a PR firm calls a person's character into question. In 2010, the Sapling Foundation which owns TED spend more than $100,000 on PR: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/943/943235545/943235545_201012_990PF.pdf http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/943/943235... [page 7]. See also "Who Owns TED?" http://www.ted.com/pages/42 http://www.ted.com/pages/42
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  At no point the author insinuates anything about how hiring a PR firm speaks of person's character. The post just simply states the facts that a) a PR firm was hired, and b) he/this firm issued threats to TED.
perspectiveless 14y ago
Ted is a circle jerk for rich people of course they don't want to hear about inequality.
- daenz 14y ago
  This was an issue on Reddit and elsewhere. Ticket prices to a TED talk are at least $6k apparently http://www.ted.com/conversations/1950/ted_s_6000_price_tag_limits_i.html http://www.ted.com/conversations/1950/ted_s_6000_price_tag_l... One ticket went for $33k http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a_ticket_to_ted.html http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a...
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    How much is a ticket to their youtube channel?
    - daenz 14y ago
      I see your point, but I think the point of the complaint was that that kind of networking is only available to the wealthy.
    - grecy 14y ago
      (free, of course) But the whole point is they only put the talks they want you to hear on YouTube. Rich people hearing about income inequality is nothing new, but it's downright scary when they limit the non-rich hearing about it.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Especially when the person lecturing them about inequality uses blatant, easily-debunked lies to do it. ("When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest...")
sbierwagen 14y ago
Why was he even pitching this talk to TED, a conference about rich people, for other rich people? That would be like me pitching a show to Fox News about how white christian males are scum and should be burned for fuel. It's the wrong message, for the wrong audience.
- grecy 14y ago
  I think you hit the nail on the head, and find it very interesting people are down voting you. This has shown TED doesn't want to spread the word about controversial issues that actually impact the vast majority of people's lives. I stand by the accusations of them being cowardly. But of course, a society by the rich, for the rich is nothing new.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    > and find it very interesting people are down voting you. People are downvoting him for making assumptions about the motivations of actual, specific people, based on little more than their presumptive membership in arbitrary and subjective categories. And, for what it's worth, you're doing the same thing.
Bud 14y ago
TED claims the talk in question was "needlessly partisan". That's almost right; just change "less" to "full". When a problem has overwhelmingly been created by one party, then yeah, of course you're going to have to be "partisan" to address it.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
twelvechairs 14y ago
> The audience at TED who heard it live... gave it, on average, mediocre ratings. Without disputing the 'ratings' (whatever these may be), its pretty obvious from the youtube video that the actual audience response is very positive rather than mediocre (the majority of the audience seem to give a standing ovation and there is pretty emphatic applause all around).
malachismith 14y ago
Censorship is censorship. End of story.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
I watched the video after reading TED's response, and I'm skeptical of some of their claims, but I can also see why they didn't initially choose to publish it on their site. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI Since it's short, I'll go over it point-by-point. 1. "It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one: if taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea is an article of faith for Republicans, and seldom challenged by Democrats, and has indeed shaped much of the economic landscape." The first line of his talk is a bit fluffy, but I don't see anything else here that isn't objectively true. Supply-side economics and increased benefits for the rich are a major part of the Republican platform, and because this idea has been accepted as true by society at large, it is not being directly challenged by the Democrats. (Who, arguably, want just as much to protect the interests of the rich & powerful as the Republicans do.) 2. "But sometimes the ideas that we are certain are true, are dead wrong. Consider that for thousands of years, humans believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some pretty terrible astronomy. Likewise, a policymaker who believes that the rich are job creators and therefore should not be taxed, will do equally terrible policy." This is just bad rhetoric and bad logic, IMO. I get the point he's trying to make, but he's not making it well -- and this is where I begin to really understand TED's decision not to highlight his video on their front page. 3. "I have started or helped start dozens of companies, and initially hired lots of people, but if there was no one around who could afford to buy what we had to sell, all those companies, and all those jobs, would have evaporated." I can't agree more with this. I think this should be obvious to anybody that thinks about economics at all, and I think this is the absolutely massive achilles' heel for supply-side economics, the elephant in the room that people don't want to talk about. 4. "That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses large or small. Jobs are a consequence of a circle-of-life- like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary consumer is more of a job creator than a capitalist like me. That's why when business people take credit for creating jobs, it's a little bit like squirrels taking credit for evolution. (audience chuckles) It's actually the other way around. Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a course of last resort for capitalists. It's what we do if and only if rising consumer demand requires it. And in this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous." Again, the delivery here is terrible, IMO, but I think his overall point is largely correct. But, there are exceptions. It would be hard to argue that PG, for example, isn't a "job creator" -- or at least a wealth creator. He, and others like him, are lowering the barriers to opportunity for many people and businesses. However, there still needs to be demand for the products and services those businesses offer -- as PG himself would tell you. Would you, for example, deploy 100 times more servers than you thought you actually needed to meet demand for your SAAS or PAAS? No? Then why would somebody running a large corporation hire more people than they thought would be needed to meet consumer demand? 5. "That's why our existing policies are so upside-down. When the biggest tax exemptions, and lowest tax rates, benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer. Since 1980, the share of income for the top 1% of Americans has more than tripled while our effective tax rates have gone down by 50%. If it was true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs. (audience laughter and applause) and yet unemployment and underemployment is at record highs." Again he kills an overall good point with a terrible statement -- unemployment and underemployment are high, yes, but nowhere near record highs. 6. "Another reason that this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough super-rich people to power a great economy. Somebody like me makes hundreds or thousands of times as much as the median American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of times as much stuff. My family owns 3 cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and shirts a year like most American men, occasionally we go out to eat with friends. I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new cars, any clothes, or enjoy any meals out. Nor can I make up for the falling consumption of the vast majority of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs, and trapped by stagnant or declining wages." 7. "Here's an incredible fact: that if the typical American family still retained the same share of income that they did in 1970, they'd earn like $45,000 more a year. Imagine what our economy would be like if that were the case." 8. "Significant privileges have come to people like me, capitalists, for being perceived as job creators at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the current economic and social arrangements is telling. It's a small jump from 'job creator' to 'The Creator'. (audience laughter) This language wasn't chosen by accident, and it's only honest to admit that when somebody like me calls themselves a job creator, we're not just describing how the economy works, but more particularly we're making a claim on status and privileges that we deserve." While perhaps true, I think that this part really detracts from his talk. 9. "Speaking of special privileges, the extraordinary differential between the 15% tax rate that capitalists pay on carried interest, dividends, and capital gains, and the 35% top marginal rate on work that ordinary Americans pay, is kind of hard to justify without a touch of deification." Man, this is just so bad right here. He really ruins his talk with this. Stick to the points, stick to the points, stick to the points. 10. "We've had it backwards for the last 30 years. Rich people like me don't create jobs. Jobs are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop between customers and businesses. And, when the middle-class thrives, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is such a fantastic deal for the middle class and the rich. So, ladies and gentlemen, here's an idea worth spreading: in a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle-class consumers, and taxing the rich to make investments to make the middle class grow and thrive is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the middle class, for the poor, and for the rich. Thank you." I really think his conclusion here is a little bit overwrought. Again, I agree with what he's saying, but the delivery, especially the references to TED's "ideas worth spreading", is just unnecessary and superfluous. As for TED's response, they justified their decision not to post the video with several points: that it was unnecessarily partisan, that it was unconvincing, and that it was mediocre. I do not see that it was unnecessarily partisan at all. He mentions political parties exactly once, at the beginning of his talk, and I don't think he said anything there that wasn't true. But, I could agree that his talk was unconvincing to anyone who steadfastly believes in supply-side economics. He didn't present facts well enough, and his talk was salted and peppered with too much opinion, hyperbole, and fluff. And, I agree wholeheartedly that it was mediocre. Compared to the talks featured on TED's home page, it just doesn't have the substance, the impact, the original research, or the delivery that those talks have. It's just not good enough of a talk. He's got good points. He clearly has something to say, and I would love nothing more than to hear more discussion like this in our national politics, instead of continuing to take a cargo-cult approach towards heaping benefits on the wealthiest class. However, he's a terrible speaker, and his talk in general needs a lot of work. (39 comments on this thread when I started writing this, and none actually discussing the content of the video -- tsk.) (edit: formatting.)
johngalt 14y ago
I didn't think the talk itself was needlessly partisan. Only reason I'd say it shouldn't be posted is that a basic intro to keynesian economics isn't particularly new or noteworthy. If I gave a TED talk that just was a fisher-price version of Bastiat's broken window, should it be aired? Should I call it censorship if it wasn't?
bgilroy26 14y ago
If you place the non-TED talk's transcript next to Hans Rosling's discussion about Global Poverty [1] it's easy to see the differences. Mr. Rosling made a seminal talk that is one of the 3 or 4 that I think of when I think of TED. It was data-driven and multi-dimensional. At the same time, you're learning about the content -- global poverty through the eyes of a top UN advisor -- you're watching world-class data visualization. Since their inception, TED has done a tremendous job staying on message. Most talks are given by people who are up to their elbows in the subject matter that they're talking about. This entrepreneur works in the business community, so there's relevance there, but that's pretty abstract. I would much rather this point be made by a union organizer. The core message of the non-TED talk is a good one. That is the problem. The entrepreneur and the internet grassroots that have followed him are over the moon for it and are happy with the implementation that have here. If they were a bit less resistant to the criticism they've received, they could probably find a better way to get their message out. For instance, how much more credible would it be if there were an enterprising union leader who could talk about his or her chapter's strategies, and who has measured the boost that their union members' employment has brought to their local community? In this age when many employers can't afford to invest in training employees who will leave their firms in 5 years, a union that provided job security to its members through training partnerships with local community colleges, and provided quality assurance to employers through licenses, and certifications in order to close the skills gap would be an inspiring organization. If they were providing each other with unemployment insurance and allowing the federal government to spend less money, that's a bi-partisan win! An approach like that works at TED. One that can't be cobbled together in a weekend. These talks are almost always personal, representing years of on-the-ground activity. If they aren't given by the leader in the field they're given by someone with a unique perspective, like Jill Bolte Taylor, the stroke victim/neuroscientist who talked about the stroke she had. This entrepreneur has a compelling message, one that I agree with, but his standpoint isn't special and his content hasn't progressed further than a well fleshed-out idea. 1. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o...
smsm42 14y ago
As always, lie travels 10 times around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on. I've encountered dozens of references already that Powers That Be and their minions at TED were afraid to talk about something that might piss of the all-powerful 1%, and that of course proves all conspiracy theories out there and gives birth to a dozen of new ones. But I wonder if any of these people will ever hear the real story.
steve8918 14y ago
First and foremost, from the video that was posted, the talk in question was not good at all. As a speaker, Nick Hanauer is not very polished and has this halting manner of speaking that is fairly irritating. It sounds like a speech that a high school student would make. This was too easy of a decision to not run this, because it was really terrible. Instead of bitching and moaning about censorship, get a better speaker to talk about income equality. Get a more dynamic speaker to present a better-researched and better written speech, and then see what happens. But THIS particular speech is not something that people should be rallying behind, because it's really bad.
wavephorm 14y ago
This sounds like the typical hogwash from any other politically aligned media outlet. Am I reading a Fox News editorial? Just post the video and let "the internet" make the decision. If you think you think you can censor opinion in the modern world then you are flat-out wrong.
- smsm42 14y ago
  The content in the video is available since day 1. The very article contains link to TED's version, which would be obvious to anyone reading the whole article, which makes me wonder - did you? The whole point is not about the talk ideas being somehow unavailable - but about the author feeling entitled to being promoted by TED and when TED does not provide that for him launching into PR campaign about "censorship". Nobody tried to "censor" anybody's opinion. But some people love having opinions without even bothering with the facts. I don't know anything more flat-out wrong than that.
sams99 14y ago
I find it tragic that this "storm in a teacup" instigated by a very rich and powerful person even happened. Saying TED shy away from controversy, or even defining this talk as huge controversy is tragic. Take this talk for example: http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_abo... -- stop reading this comment -- AND GO WATCH IT. It touches on many very critical issues in our society and the USA in particular that are marginalised and forgotten. If this talk was "censored" due to the fact it deals with "minority issues" I would understand a "censorship" claim. The "tax the mega rich" talk was not powerful enough and did not properly deal with all the surrounding issues. As a person who watched many TED talks I also feel it was not at the right level. I also find it very disingenuous that the speaker did not tell anything about his story, what is he doing to change the state of affairs (besides talking at TED).
joejohnson 14y ago
It seems to me that TED was embarassed by this talk, not because they disagree with the conclusions, but just because the speaker was so unbearable to watch, and TED probably felt that he came off a little weird.
tallpapab 14y ago
tl;dr; Unpolished speaker is right.
alan_cx 14y ago
Isn't it up to "me" to decide what is partisan and what is or is not convincing? Heh, I suppose the devil's "quality" control argument slides right in.
Codhisattva 14y ago
Brilliant move by both parties to make this talk more popular than if it had just been released normally. Yes his presentation is not up to snuff as the typical TED speaker. So a quiet YouTube release and shitstorm of trumped up controversy work out great for getting the message out: "In a consumption driven economy, the middle class is more important than the elite class."
Aftershock21 14y ago
All this non productive discussion aside, Can Hackers solve this problem ? Entrepreneurs take risk and should be rewarded accordingly. However not all Rich people are Entrepreneurs. Some just keep their money in the bank and stagnate the economy. How about creating Soft-Tax system, where Rich people are taxed Soft-Tax in addition to regular Tax. Soft-Tax would be a separate bank account where Rich must transfer their capital for Entrepreneurial work. If they don't use that money for funding new businesses Soft-Tax would turn into regular Tax after some deadline.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pippy 14y ago
Both parties are at fault here. * The attendee for hiring a PR firm to create commotion * TED for not being transparent TED's decision, based on the elections or quality is superfluous. The fact is they weren't up front about it. If TED took its reputation seriously it would be transparent in all aspects of video selection. If it isn't censorship, they wouldn't be in this situation. Personally the slides I read were thought provoking, which is what TED was about (despite some graphs not labeling their Y access correctly). Hiring a PR firm for a smear campaign on a non profit is simply a dick move. I shouldn't have to elaborate on that.
- blueben 14y ago
  I continue to be amazed that folks continue to claim a rich man with a published book who makes the rounds on cable news networks is somehow being "censored" by virtue of his mediocre talk not being highlighted by an independent foundation. Seriously, this does a serious disservice to the word censorship and people across the globe who suffer from actual censorship.
hristov 14y ago
Here is a wonderful little quote from the article: "Also, for the record, we have never sought advice from any of our advertisers on what we carry editorially. To anyone who knows how TED operates, or who has observed the noncommercial look and feel of the website, the notion that we would is laughable." For anybody that knows how to read press releases, this speaks volumes. It is indignant and righteous and yet at the same time it clearly leaves a loophole one can use to back out of the statement at a later date. Hint: one does not always have to seek advise to receive it. Sometimes the "advice" just comes to you.
mkopinsky 14y ago
Youtube's slow update of view counts + a video that goes very and is very controversial very quickly = 303 views 2,115 likes, 837 dislikes
sakura_k 14y ago
This story is too hot for Safari on iPad. Every time I click the link, it crashes.
jonah 14y ago
FWIW, Richard Wilkinson's TED talk "How economic inequality harms societies"[1] makes a far superior argument. It's laden with original research, data, and graphs, lots of graphs. :D [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
389401a 14y ago
It's kind of funny to hear wealthy individuals complaining about not taxing their class proportionally. As if they are saying "This is wrong. But unless the government tells us we have to pay, we're still not going to pay." Why don't these individuals, e.g. Buffett, this TED speaker, and others, just lead by example. Overpay their taxes to amount to whatever they think is fair. Why do they have to wait for the government to tell them they must pay? Or they say they will pay more only if other wealthy individuals do the same. Either they believe in paying a bigger share or they don't. This "I'm not going to do it unless he does too" attitude is child-like behaviour.
- nknight 14y ago
  I'd say the "every man for himself" mentality you embody is what's child-like.
- anotherthrow 14y ago
  >Either they believe in paying a bigger share or they don't. First, They believe in rules to enforce everyone paying a bigger share, and are lobbying to bring that about. There's nothing inconsistent in doing that whilst not individually making a bigger voluntary contribution. One might think that one's efforts are far better spent lobbying for a general rule then individually donating. Second, people like Buffett have commitments to philantropy that I think would easily count as making a bigger contribution.
Lednakashim 14y ago
$6000 dollar ticket price. That it is the real inequality.
horsehead 14y ago
It sounds like a case of activist journalism, or a reporter got duped into thinking some injustice was carried out by TED. The power of media at play, folks. Maybe i'll have to go back and actually watch the speech now. Funny, though, how this fellow, if he did feel slighted by TED and sought to get his speech publicized, is now getting all this attention ... Seems he's the beneficiary of a lot of interest at TED's expense.
aaronh 14y ago
The abdication of duty to truth in favor of balancing competing ideas is a disease. Sometimes some ideas are just empirically more correct and some are just empirically more incorrect. If some partisans happen to hold the more correct view, and others happen hold the more incorrect view, then to speak the correct view cannot avoid being incidentally partisan. To therefore preclude that speech as "partisan" is ridiculous.

471 points by Duff 14y ago

nkurz 14y ago

The 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 and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US. Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party." (attributed to Chris Anderson) Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is?

waterlesscloud 14y ago
Points made in an explicitly partisan manner are inherently less valuable to anyone other than the party being supported.
- debacle 14y ago
  "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
  - sp332 14y ago
    The same guy who said "I dream of a world where reality and truthiness can be one."- Stephen Colbert
    - emehrkay 14y ago
      Jon Stewart said the other 'liberal/reality' quote
      - sp332 14y ago
        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."
        gee_totes 14y ago
        'Reality has a well known Google bias'
        emehrkay 14y ago
        This is what I get for trying to be smart on the internet
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - jerf 14y ago
    Are actually making that claim, or is that an attempt to archly demonstrate the point being made? Because if you're seriously making that claim as others had, I can barely count the number of fallacies and debate style errors it contains with both hands. If you weren't trying to provide an example of how explicitly partisan debates can just shut down all conversation, you still did a good job.
    - debacle 14y ago
      I actually posted it initially without the double quotes, but then realized I would see a lot of posts like yours so edited it very quickly to add the double quotes in.
- pohl 14y ago
  The talk actually presents an idea that is, to some extent, a testable scientific economic claim: that the wealth of middle-class plays an important role in a feedback loop that creates jobs. The Republican party should find this insight to be valuable, since their stated goal is job creation, right? Why might they not want to learn something about the process they are working so hard to enable?
- tokenizer 14y ago
  Agreed. He made no effort to deny he or others who operate with TED have liberal minded ideas. He also gives a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation to the situation and in my opinion does nothing to deter my view of TED in any shape or form. And to people who make this out to be a US political issue, income equality is a global issue, and always have been. It's not the issue being brushed off but the quality of the argument judged by TED. But that said it's a really good talk.
- lukifer 14y ago
  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.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    Based on what Chris Anderson said, if a talk about global warming made direct statements about political parties, they would reject it. That's the difference between controversial and partisan.
  - praptak 14y ago
    I believe this particular decision was not about the message but about the way it was delivered. My hypothesis is that the same topic presented in a wikipediish NPOV style would fare much better. And symmetrically if you spiced a talk about climate change with jabs at replublicans it would share the fate of the talk in question.
    - lukifer 14y ago
      Admittedly, the one reference he made to parties at the beginning was unnecessary (somehow, I hadn't even heard it). But he isn't calling out any party; he is calling out a particular policy, and the way of thinking that pre-dates it, that he feels is counter-productive. There is no way to criticize the ideas he does without being "political". To put the shoe on the other foot: let's say someone had data which demonstrated that welfare and affirmative action are bad for the people they purport to help (just an example, I'm not making a case for or against either). How could one make that argument in a neutral, non-partisan way, when those issues have been politicized to death for decades? You couldn't. You'd have to either state your case bluntly and take the heat, or shut up and go away. Though the talk could definitely have been better (more data, please), I'm glad the speaker chose the former, and I think he made the best attempt possible at being neutral.
runako 14y ago
>> "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.
- grimboy 14y ago
  It's fine as long as you don't name any political party by name I think.
  - OzzyB 14y ago
    Unless the lead spokesperson is a leading political figure.
chc 14y ago
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.
scott_s 14y ago
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.
- pauljonas 14y ago
  But that is the problem, in a nutshell. We don't want to "call out political parties", so we will ignore the truth that one of the political parties has deviated so far off course, in its anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-equality pursuit. But let us not speak of it.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    Attacking a political party invites various cognitive biases related to tribalism - both for the people who like and dislike that party. It makes it more difficult for an audience to evaluate your arguments on their own merit.
    - pauljonas 14y ago
      This is an affliction by which people muddle objectivity with neutrality. One can adopt a neutral (NPOV as they say in Wikipedia land) vantage point, yet be terribly biased, even if it is simply confined to what is filtered out. One can be biased to an intellectual (or political) plank, yet be objective in evaluating arguments and evidence. Yes, tribalism can induce such ills as well as invoke cognitive dissonance, but it is not a default setting.
  - chc 14y ago
    Go ahead and speak of it. Nobody's stopping you. It just won't get you on TED's website.
  - fleitz 14y ago
    No it isn't the problem, at least not according to TED, TEDs mission is not to spread the gospel about political parties. Want to spread the truth about Republicans and Democrats? Go on CNN. That's what it's there for, you can shout about how Republicans are anti-intellectual and Democrats are communists all day long on CNN, however TED doesn't want to be CNN. There's a big difference between saying Republicans are anti-intellectual and saying anti-intellectualism is bad for the following reasons. TED is all for the latter and completely against the former.
roguecoder 14y ago
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.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  > They (...) worship some mythical conflict-free land of bipartisanship and kittens, where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence. Because that is how the world should be like and they have a mission to make it real. It's not a myth. It's a goal.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence Welcome to the world of science.
batista 14y ago
>Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is? When money and power is involved, you don't get to be independent in the US (or a lot of other places for that matter). You have the right to free speech as long as you talk for inconsequential issues, if you talk for anything else you are labeled a "partisan" (that goes for both republicans and democrats, and even every other stance). You are of course free to raise very important issues for society as a whole, but not in a way that implies that the way the power/financial system works is bad in toto -- the best you can get away with is "inefficient". That is, you have free speech as long as you don't use it for real political causes. Any other partial view is allowed (gay or anti-gay, abortion or pro-life, etc...).
- smsm42 14y ago
  There are many politicians and public figures that say exactly what you just said - that the way the financial system works is bad (actually, IIRC, no other than Obama himself reiterated that talking on the news about huge Chase loss) - and the way the political system works is bad (they even try to organize third parties and independent candidates, which inevitably result in pathetic failure at the polls) - so making it sound as it's somehow topic that no one dares to talk about for the fear of all-powerful 1% is baloney. This topic is talked about far and wide. You can publish any opinion, and even for the most outrageous ones, you get a pretty good chance for your 15 minutes of fame - actually, if it's outrageous, your chances are higher, TV shows need ratings and outrage means notoriety means ratings. Of course, it's one thing to talk about everything being screwed up and quite another - having any practical recipe of how to fix it and being able to convince enough people to follow you. Words are wind, you know. Allowed is one thing, effectual is another. But not because there's an evil 1% conspiracy - but because mainstream is mainstream for a reason, changing people's opinions is very hard.
dclowd9901 14y ago
If you read the transcript, you get the distinct sense that what you're listening to isn't intellectual discovery based on empirical data. It reads like a speech from a political candidate. It truly is not TED worthy, and this is from someone who fully believes every word that man uttered. TED is about sharing knowledge. Raw, unbiased, unignorable knowledge. Talks that are based entirely on anecdote and talking points have no place in the discussion. After reading the transcript, I firmly believe they made the right choice. And it could simply be that the ambiguous nature of the study of economics prevents it from being an approached topic on TED, which is unfortunate, but I don't believe for one second they blacklist anything based on controversy alone.
- jellicle 14y ago
  His talk would have been better had it referenced the numerous studies showing that more unequal countries have worse results across the board. However, 3 minutes is an extremely short period of time - no one else speaking at TED is laboring under the requirement to fully document everything they are saying in a 3 minute speech.
- nkurz 14y ago
  I haven't heard or read this talk, and presume that Anderson made a correct editorial decision regarding its merits. My focus is on the statement "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US." I'm not arguing that Ted should be pressured into publicizing this talk. But with great admiration for Ted, I think their approach to politicized topics bears further discussion. I'm stunned to think that an international organization should find it less desirable to broach certain topics due to the timing of a US election.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    No one has said they will avoid any topic at any time. Anderson has said they will avoid overtly partisan talks during an election year. You can talk about the topic, Anderson just won't promote if if you do it in a partisan manner.
fleitz 14y ago
I think it's sort of like the hacker news policy, don't post stuff that people can read about elsewhere. If you talk to most people involved in a particular issue (eg. not politicians) they tend to have views that diverge from the party line, when a talk lines up perfectly with a particular party it comes off more like talking points than an engaging topic. Imagine a talk on states rights that comes out against abortion and for the war on drugs. Sounds to me like Republican crap rather than an intelligent debate on the separation of powers in government. I think this is what TED is trying to avoid, they're all for an intelligent debate on separation of powers, but against spewing republican or democratic talking points.

rexreed 14y ago

Maybe I'm politically tone deaf, but the talk didn't seem particularly partisan at all. Sure, it had a particular perspective more in alignment with one party than another, but wouldn't this talk be just as relevant in India and the UK as it is in the US, and in which case, not particularly partisan at all? Don't all TED talks have some bias to one perspective on the world or philosophy or another? I don't get why there's such furor over this.

46Bit 14y ago
The problem here I suspect is that there are sensible bases for the core tenets of different political points of view, and they end up being stifled because of it.

klochner 14y ago

If true, the aggressively planned PR campaign indicates that this was more than just a politically-sensitive topic, but rather a politically-motivated talk: He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us . . . TED should allow sensitive topics, but to allow others to use TED manipulatively as a pawn in the larger political debate subverts their mission and damages their credibility.

daniel_solano 14y ago
Whether or not the talk was politically motivated, if this article is correct about what the speaker did as a result of rejection, the speaker is an attention-seeking demagogue that uses threats and deception for self-promotion.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  ...or, the speaker is simply passionate about a topic that he believes needs to be discussed as openly as possible. Aren't you now committing the same mistake of guessing the speaker's motivations as everyone who criticized TED?
  - daniel_solano 14y ago
    Perhaps, and I accept that it is possible that the facts as stated in the article are wrong. However, if we accept them as true, the speaker: 1. Hired a PR firm in an attempt to threaten TED into publishing his talk. 2. When that failed, he misrepresented TED (by selectively quoting private correspondence) to the media in order to create the subsequent firestorm. I will accept that the speaker may be passionate about his views. However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open. The ends does not justify the means.
    - daenz 14y ago
      > However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open. How do you conclude that? The only possible dishonesty I've seen is about how the talk was handled, not the content of the talk. He seems all for open discussion of the content of the talk.

dkhenry 14y ago

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.

roguecoder 14y ago
"Censorship" is the wrong word, but I'll stand by my accusations of cowardliness. If what he said was an irrelevant ad hominem attack (like "Republicans smell and are ugly") I'd understand their reluctance, but it was an accurate description of the actions of a political party. By ruling such topics off limits, they are intellectually hobbling the discussions that can be had. We can not address the problems they are so enamored of without addressing the forces that have a vested interest in maintaining them. Their current position is like an agnostic who says, "well, we can never know..." when what they mean is "of course the idea of a divine being is a human invention, but if I say that some people might not like me as much." They are cowards, and I have little respect for cowards.
- fleitz 14y ago
  Not getting into arguments with children about whether the easter bunny or santa claus are real doesn't make a person a coward it makes them intelligent. If they want to believe in those things then it's fine, I don't need to explain to them the irrationality of it, and often times it's just more fun to go along with it. You try explaining to a group of children on Christmas morning that Santa isn't real and there aren't going to be any presents this year. If instead you tell the children you will put in a good word for them with Santa Claus and then Santa Claus brings them the stuff they wanted then they'll be amazed by your pull with Santa. Think of it this way, every week 2 billion people give up 10% of their wages just so Santa's intercessors can give them a little wine and some rice paper.

spacemanaki 14y ago

What'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"

gee_totes 14y ago
Yeah I agree. For reference, 'astroturfing' is not what happened here. Astroturfing is when a large entity funds what looks like a grassroots, anti-establishment movement. Astroturfing is about orchestrating grassroots tactics to give the appearance of a genuine movement. None of that happened here. Instead what happend was someone posted and article to the internet, the internet got outraged, and someone else issued an apology. Same cycle that happens every day.

alecco 14y ago

Released video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI 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.

scott_s 14y ago
The implication is that the Republicans are wrong and the Democrats should challenge it. In other words, "Hey, Democrats, here's an argument you should use." That's partisan.
- rexreed 14y ago
  I think that's the only sentence / segment in the whole talk that refers to one party or the other. Indeed, this talk is relevant even in countries where neither party exists. It seems a heck of a lot less partisan than what passes for news on a daily basis around these parts -- pick your cable news network of choice.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    "Less bad" != "Good"
- tripzilch 14y ago
  What? No. As an outsider, it is yet another example that both your parties are perfectly worthless. "Hey, Democrats, here's an argument you should use" is only partisan if there was a snowflake's chance in hell that they'd actually do something. But the Big People with their arms in the puppet on the right don't want that just as little as the ones fisting the puppet on the left. Four years after replacing the Beast with the Smiler, and what have you learned? "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"
chc 14y ago
Many of those other bad presentations don't get posted either, so why can't they pull that card?

borism 14y ago

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape. What's so f*cking partisan about it?

Tossrock 14y ago

Relevant pg essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html The power of PR can be pretty amazing sometimes. Especially scary given the susceptibility of the masses (ie, the Reddit firestorm).

daenz 14y ago

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. I read that as "it is controversial, so we don't want to talk about that." If some new science showed that human consciousness begins at X days after conception, would that not be aired because it is a hot-button topic too?

TeMPOraL 14y ago
If there was enough evidence, I guess it would. What differs TED from "elsewhere in the media" is that the former has content, the latter usually not so much.
tomjen3 14y ago
Why should he post a talk about that? You could get that information from any other source. Whereas TED is the only place I can find a talk about taking criminals bicycling, the importance of the washing machine and why we should eat insects (that one does have a few doses of liberal morality though).
- daenz 14y ago
  The TED audience seemed to like it and think it's appropriate. Watch it to the end, half of the audience gives a standing ovation. I've seen front page TED talks that don't get standing ovations.
Gormo 14y ago
Science is science, and can be discussed without descending into a political debate. Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political, and have little value outside of polemic.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political I really doubt that. Given that a Google for "study of effects of inequality" returns 13 million results, a citation of the absence of relevant citations is needed.

molecule 14y ago

Going out of the way to not seem partisan has the same effect as being partisan.

chc 14y ago
It turns the conversation into a tribal pissing match? I don't think that's what taking an even-handed and nonconfrontational approach does.

mcantelon 14y ago

"TED: politically safe ideas worth spreading."

trotsky 14y ago

astroturfing (ˈæstrəʊˌtɜːfɪŋ) — n a PR tactic used in politics and advertising in which actors are paid to display overt and apparently spontaneous grassroots support for a particular product, policy, or event

patdennis 14y ago

As someone who writes Democratic talking points for a living, I would like to point out that the original TED talk sounded like something I would write for work. I do wholeheartedly agree with the central thesis, but if I were to put together a (nonpolitical) TED talk on the subject I would've been a lot lighter on the rhetoric and heavier on the case studies.

DavidAbrams 14y ago

"Astroturfing"? Come on, use real words that mean something.

jlgreco 14y ago
Astroturfing is a real word with meaning that has been used since the 80s...

brudgers 14y ago

I wouldn't call this "the story behind" but rather "she said." While I find it interesting that the author does not dispute the accuracy of the emails describing the talk as too controversial, what I find troubling is that the author insinuates that hiring a PR firm calls a person's character into question. In 2010, the Sapling Foundation which owns TED spend more than $100,000 on PR: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/943/943235545/943235545_201012_990PF.pdf http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/943/943235... [page 7]. See also "Who Owns TED?" http://www.ted.com/pages/42 http://www.ted.com/pages/42

TeMPOraL 14y ago
At no point the author insinuates anything about how hiring a PR firm speaks of person's character. The post just simply states the facts that a) a PR firm was hired, and b) he/this firm issued threats to TED.

perspectiveless 14y ago

Ted is a circle jerk for rich people of course they don't want to hear about inequality.

daenz 14y ago
This was an issue on Reddit and elsewhere. Ticket prices to a TED talk are at least $6k apparently http://www.ted.com/conversations/1950/ted_s_6000_price_tag_limits_i.html http://www.ted.com/conversations/1950/ted_s_6000_price_tag_l... One ticket went for $33k http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a_ticket_to_ted.html http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a...
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  How much is a ticket to their youtube channel?
  - daenz 14y ago
    I see your point, but I think the point of the complaint was that that kind of networking is only available to the wealthy.
  - grecy 14y ago
    (free, of course) But the whole point is they only put the talks they want you to hear on YouTube. Rich people hearing about income inequality is nothing new, but it's downright scary when they limit the non-rich hearing about it.
CamperBob2 14y ago
Especially when the person lecturing them about inequality uses blatant, easily-debunked lies to do it. ("When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest...")

sbierwagen 14y ago

Why was he even pitching this talk to TED, a conference about rich people, for other rich people? That would be like me pitching a show to Fox News about how white christian males are scum and should be burned for fuel. It's the wrong message, for the wrong audience.

grecy 14y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head, and find it very interesting people are down voting you. This has shown TED doesn't want to spread the word about controversial issues that actually impact the vast majority of people's lives. I stand by the accusations of them being cowardly. But of course, a society by the rich, for the rich is nothing new.
- Gormo 14y ago
  > and find it very interesting people are down voting you. People are downvoting him for making assumptions about the motivations of actual, specific people, based on little more than their presumptive membership in arbitrary and subjective categories. And, for what it's worth, you're doing the same thing.

Bud 14y ago

TED claims the talk in question was "needlessly partisan". That's almost right; just change "less" to "full". When a problem has overwhelmingly been created by one party, then yeah, of course you're going to have to be "partisan" to address it.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

twelvechairs 14y ago

> The audience at TED who heard it live... gave it, on average, mediocre ratings. Without disputing the 'ratings' (whatever these may be), its pretty obvious from the youtube video that the actual audience response is very positive rather than mediocre (the majority of the audience seem to give a standing ovation and there is pretty emphatic applause all around).

malachismith 14y ago

Censorship is censorship. End of story.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

I watched the video after reading TED's response, and I'm skeptical of some of their claims, but I can also see why they didn't initially choose to publish it on their site. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI Since it's short, I'll go over it point-by-point. 1. "It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one: if taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea is an article of faith for Republicans, and seldom challenged by Democrats, and has indeed shaped much of the economic landscape." The first line of his talk is a bit fluffy, but I don't see anything else here that isn't objectively true. Supply-side economics and increased benefits for the rich are a major part of the Republican platform, and because this idea has been accepted as true by society at large, it is not being directly challenged by the Democrats. (Who, arguably, want just as much to protect the interests of the rich & powerful as the Republicans do.) 2. "But sometimes the ideas that we are certain are true, are dead wrong. Consider that for thousands of years, humans believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some pretty terrible astronomy. Likewise, a policymaker who believes that the rich are job creators and therefore should not be taxed, will do equally terrible policy." This is just bad rhetoric and bad logic, IMO. I get the point he's trying to make, but he's not making it well -- and this is where I begin to really understand TED's decision not to highlight his video on their front page. 3. "I have started or helped start dozens of companies, and initially hired lots of people, but if there was no one around who could afford to buy what we had to sell, all those companies, and all those jobs, would have evaporated." I can't agree more with this. I think this should be obvious to anybody that thinks about economics at all, and I think this is the absolutely massive achilles' heel for supply-side economics, the elephant in the room that people don't want to talk about. 4. "That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses large or small. Jobs are a consequence of a circle-of-life- like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary consumer is more of a job creator than a capitalist like me. That's why when business people take credit for creating jobs, it's a little bit like squirrels taking credit for evolution. (audience chuckles) It's actually the other way around. Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a course of last resort for capitalists. It's what we do if and only if rising consumer demand requires it. And in this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous." Again, the delivery here is terrible, IMO, but I think his overall point is largely correct. But, there are exceptions. It would be hard to argue that PG, for example, isn't a "job creator" -- or at least a wealth creator. He, and others like him, are lowering the barriers to opportunity for many people and businesses. However, there still needs to be demand for the products and services those businesses offer -- as PG himself would tell you. Would you, for example, deploy 100 times more servers than you thought you actually needed to meet demand for your SAAS or PAAS? No? Then why would somebody running a large corporation hire more people than they thought would be needed to meet consumer demand? 5. "That's why our existing policies are so upside-down. When the biggest tax exemptions, and lowest tax rates, benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer. Since 1980, the share of income for the top 1% of Americans has more than tripled while our effective tax rates have gone down by 50%. If it was true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs. (audience laughter and applause) and yet unemployment and underemployment is at record highs." Again he kills an overall good point with a terrible statement -- unemployment and underemployment are high, yes, but nowhere near record highs. 6. "Another reason that this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough super-rich people to power a great economy. Somebody like me makes hundreds or thousands of times as much as the median American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of times as much stuff. My family owns 3 cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and shirts a year like most American men, occasionally we go out to eat with friends. I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new cars, any clothes, or enjoy any meals out. Nor can I make up for the falling consumption of the vast majority of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs, and trapped by stagnant or declining wages." 7. "Here's an incredible fact: that if the typical American family still retained the same share of income that they did in 1970, they'd earn like $45,000 more a year. Imagine what our economy would be like if that were the case." 8. "Significant privileges have come to people like me, capitalists, for being perceived as job creators at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the current economic and social arrangements is telling. It's a small jump from 'job creator' to 'The Creator'. (audience laughter) This language wasn't chosen by accident, and it's only honest to admit that when somebody like me calls themselves a job creator, we're not just describing how the economy works, but more particularly we're making a claim on status and privileges that we deserve." While perhaps true, I think that this part really detracts from his talk. 9. "Speaking of special privileges, the extraordinary differential between the 15% tax rate that capitalists pay on carried interest, dividends, and capital gains, and the 35% top marginal rate on work that ordinary Americans pay, is kind of hard to justify without a touch of deification." Man, this is just so bad right here. He really ruins his talk with this. Stick to the points, stick to the points, stick to the points. 10. "We've had it backwards for the last 30 years. Rich people like me don't create jobs. Jobs are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop between customers and businesses. And, when the middle-class thrives, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is such a fantastic deal for the middle class and the rich. So, ladies and gentlemen, here's an idea worth spreading: in a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle-class consumers, and taxing the rich to make investments to make the middle class grow and thrive is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the middle class, for the poor, and for the rich. Thank you." I really think his conclusion here is a little bit overwrought. Again, I agree with what he's saying, but the delivery, especially the references to TED's "ideas worth spreading", is just unnecessary and superfluous. As for TED's response, they justified their decision not to post the video with several points: that it was unnecessarily partisan, that it was unconvincing, and that it was mediocre. I do not see that it was unnecessarily partisan at all. He mentions political parties exactly once, at the beginning of his talk, and I don't think he said anything there that wasn't true. But, I could agree that his talk was unconvincing to anyone who steadfastly believes in supply-side economics. He didn't present facts well enough, and his talk was salted and peppered with too much opinion, hyperbole, and fluff. And, I agree wholeheartedly that it was mediocre. Compared to the talks featured on TED's home page, it just doesn't have the substance, the impact, the original research, or the delivery that those talks have. It's just not good enough of a talk. He's got good points. He clearly has something to say, and I would love nothing more than to hear more discussion like this in our national politics, instead of continuing to take a cargo-cult approach towards heaping benefits on the wealthiest class. However, he's a terrible speaker, and his talk in general needs a lot of work. (39 comments on this thread when I started writing this, and none actually discussing the content of the video -- tsk.) (edit: formatting.)

johngalt 14y ago

I didn't think the talk itself was needlessly partisan. Only reason I'd say it shouldn't be posted is that a basic intro to keynesian economics isn't particularly new or noteworthy. If I gave a TED talk that just was a fisher-price version of Bastiat's broken window, should it be aired? Should I call it censorship if it wasn't?

bgilroy26 14y ago

If you place the non-TED talk's transcript next to Hans Rosling's discussion about Global Poverty [1] it's easy to see the differences. Mr. Rosling made a seminal talk that is one of the 3 or 4 that I think of when I think of TED. It was data-driven and multi-dimensional. At the same time, you're learning about the content -- global poverty through the eyes of a top UN advisor -- you're watching world-class data visualization. Since their inception, TED has done a tremendous job staying on message. Most talks are given by people who are up to their elbows in the subject matter that they're talking about. This entrepreneur works in the business community, so there's relevance there, but that's pretty abstract. I would much rather this point be made by a union organizer. The core message of the non-TED talk is a good one. That is the problem. The entrepreneur and the internet grassroots that have followed him are over the moon for it and are happy with the implementation that have here. If they were a bit less resistant to the criticism they've received, they could probably find a better way to get their message out. For instance, how much more credible would it be if there were an enterprising union leader who could talk about his or her chapter's strategies, and who has measured the boost that their union members' employment has brought to their local community? In this age when many employers can't afford to invest in training employees who will leave their firms in 5 years, a union that provided job security to its members through training partnerships with local community colleges, and provided quality assurance to employers through licenses, and certifications in order to close the skills gap would be an inspiring organization. If they were providing each other with unemployment insurance and allowing the federal government to spend less money, that's a bi-partisan win! An approach like that works at TED. One that can't be cobbled together in a weekend. These talks are almost always personal, representing years of on-the-ground activity. If they aren't given by the leader in the field they're given by someone with a unique perspective, like Jill Bolte Taylor, the stroke victim/neuroscientist who talked about the stroke she had. This entrepreneur has a compelling message, one that I agree with, but his standpoint isn't special and his content hasn't progressed further than a well fleshed-out idea. 1. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o...

smsm42 14y ago

As always, lie travels 10 times around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on. I've encountered dozens of references already that Powers That Be and their minions at TED were afraid to talk about something that might piss of the all-powerful 1%, and that of course proves all conspiracy theories out there and gives birth to a dozen of new ones. But I wonder if any of these people will ever hear the real story.

steve8918 14y ago

First and foremost, from the video that was posted, the talk in question was not good at all. As a speaker, Nick Hanauer is not very polished and has this halting manner of speaking that is fairly irritating. It sounds like a speech that a high school student would make. This was too easy of a decision to not run this, because it was really terrible. Instead of bitching and moaning about censorship, get a better speaker to talk about income equality. Get a more dynamic speaker to present a better-researched and better written speech, and then see what happens. But THIS particular speech is not something that people should be rallying behind, because it's really bad.

wavephorm 14y ago

This sounds like the typical hogwash from any other politically aligned media outlet. Am I reading a Fox News editorial? Just post the video and let "the internet" make the decision. If you think you think you can censor opinion in the modern world then you are flat-out wrong.

smsm42 14y ago
The content in the video is available since day 1. The very article contains link to TED's version, which would be obvious to anyone reading the whole article, which makes me wonder - did you? The whole point is not about the talk ideas being somehow unavailable - but about the author feeling entitled to being promoted by TED and when TED does not provide that for him launching into PR campaign about "censorship". Nobody tried to "censor" anybody's opinion. But some people love having opinions without even bothering with the facts. I don't know anything more flat-out wrong than that.

sams99 14y ago

I find it tragic that this "storm in a teacup" instigated by a very rich and powerful person even happened. Saying TED shy away from controversy, or even defining this talk as huge controversy is tragic. Take this talk for example: http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_abo... -- stop reading this comment -- AND GO WATCH IT. It touches on many very critical issues in our society and the USA in particular that are marginalised and forgotten. If this talk was "censored" due to the fact it deals with "minority issues" I would understand a "censorship" claim. The "tax the mega rich" talk was not powerful enough and did not properly deal with all the surrounding issues. As a person who watched many TED talks I also feel it was not at the right level. I also find it very disingenuous that the speaker did not tell anything about his story, what is he doing to change the state of affairs (besides talking at TED).

joejohnson 14y ago

It seems to me that TED was embarassed by this talk, not because they disagree with the conclusions, but just because the speaker was so unbearable to watch, and TED probably felt that he came off a little weird.

tallpapab 14y ago

tl;dr; Unpolished speaker is right.

alan_cx 14y ago

Isn't it up to "me" to decide what is partisan and what is or is not convincing? Heh, I suppose the devil's "quality" control argument slides right in.

Codhisattva 14y ago

Brilliant move by both parties to make this talk more popular than if it had just been released normally. Yes his presentation is not up to snuff as the typical TED speaker. So a quiet YouTube release and shitstorm of trumped up controversy work out great for getting the message out: "In a consumption driven economy, the middle class is more important than the elite class."

Aftershock21 14y ago

All this non productive discussion aside, Can Hackers solve this problem ? Entrepreneurs take risk and should be rewarded accordingly. However not all Rich people are Entrepreneurs. Some just keep their money in the bank and stagnate the economy. How about creating Soft-Tax system, where Rich people are taxed Soft-Tax in addition to regular Tax. Soft-Tax would be a separate bank account where Rich must transfer their capital for Entrepreneurial work. If they don't use that money for funding new businesses Soft-Tax would turn into regular Tax after some deadline.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

pippy 14y ago

Both parties are at fault here. * The attendee for hiring a PR firm to create commotion * TED for not being transparent TED's decision, based on the elections or quality is superfluous. The fact is they weren't up front about it. If TED took its reputation seriously it would be transparent in all aspects of video selection. If it isn't censorship, they wouldn't be in this situation. Personally the slides I read were thought provoking, which is what TED was about (despite some graphs not labeling their Y access correctly). Hiring a PR firm for a smear campaign on a non profit is simply a dick move. I shouldn't have to elaborate on that.

blueben 14y ago
I continue to be amazed that folks continue to claim a rich man with a published book who makes the rounds on cable news networks is somehow being "censored" by virtue of his mediocre talk not being highlighted by an independent foundation. Seriously, this does a serious disservice to the word censorship and people across the globe who suffer from actual censorship.

hristov 14y ago

Here is a wonderful little quote from the article: "Also, for the record, we have never sought advice from any of our advertisers on what we carry editorially. To anyone who knows how TED operates, or who has observed the noncommercial look and feel of the website, the notion that we would is laughable." For anybody that knows how to read press releases, this speaks volumes. It is indignant and righteous and yet at the same time it clearly leaves a loophole one can use to back out of the statement at a later date. Hint: one does not always have to seek advise to receive it. Sometimes the "advice" just comes to you.

mkopinsky 14y ago

Youtube's slow update of view counts + a video that goes very and is very controversial very quickly = 303 views 2,115 likes, 837 dislikes

sakura_k 14y ago

This story is too hot for Safari on iPad. Every time I click the link, it crashes.

jonah 14y ago

FWIW, Richard Wilkinson's TED talk "How economic inequality harms societies"[1] makes a far superior argument. It's laden with original research, data, and graphs, lots of graphs. :D [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

389401a 14y ago

It's kind of funny to hear wealthy individuals complaining about not taxing their class proportionally. As if they are saying "This is wrong. But unless the government tells us we have to pay, we're still not going to pay." Why don't these individuals, e.g. Buffett, this TED speaker, and others, just lead by example. Overpay their taxes to amount to whatever they think is fair. Why do they have to wait for the government to tell them they must pay? Or they say they will pay more only if other wealthy individuals do the same. Either they believe in paying a bigger share or they don't. This "I'm not going to do it unless he does too" attitude is child-like behaviour.

nknight 14y ago
I'd say the "every man for himself" mentality you embody is what's child-like.
anotherthrow 14y ago
>Either they believe in paying a bigger share or they don't. First, They believe in rules to enforce everyone paying a bigger share, and are lobbying to bring that about. There's nothing inconsistent in doing that whilst not individually making a bigger voluntary contribution. One might think that one's efforts are far better spent lobbying for a general rule then individually donating. Second, people like Buffett have commitments to philantropy that I think would easily count as making a bigger contribution.

Lednakashim 14y ago

$6000 dollar ticket price. That it is the real inequality.

horsehead 14y ago

It sounds like a case of activist journalism, or a reporter got duped into thinking some injustice was carried out by TED. The power of media at play, folks. Maybe i'll have to go back and actually watch the speech now. Funny, though, how this fellow, if he did feel slighted by TED and sought to get his speech publicized, is now getting all this attention ... Seems he's the beneficiary of a lot of interest at TED's expense.

aaronh 14y ago

The abdication of duty to truth in favor of balancing competing ideas is a disease. Sometimes some ideas are just empirically more correct and some are just empirically more incorrect. If some partisans happen to hold the more correct view, and others happen hold the more incorrect view, then to speak the correct view cannot avoid being incidentally partisan. To therefore preclude that speech as "partisan" is ridiculous.