
TED and inequality: The real story - Duff
http://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405
======
nkurz
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
Points made in an explicitly partisan manner are inherently less valuable to
anyone other than the party being supported.

~~~
lukifer
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.

~~~
praptak
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
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.

~~~
lotharbot
> _"let's say someone had data which demonstrated that [partisan policy X is]
> bad.... How could one make that argument in a neutral, non-partisan way"_

"It is important to help [group] overcome [disadvantage]. We have new data
showing that [policy], while stemming from admirable goals, is ultimately
counterproductive, leading to worse outcomes than would be expected without
such a policy in place." Then discuss the data, without specifically naming
any politician or political party or questioning anyone's motives. Make
recommendations based on the idea of doing right by those you're trying to
help, rather than making accusations based on the idea of the other side being
evil or stupid.

It's certainly true that some people would interpret your statement in a
partisan way. Some people would assume you were secretly funded by the
Association of Partisan Conspirators. But by focusing on data rather than
partisan cheap shots, you would give them little to go on, and you would be
more engaging to those who are honestly interested in doing the right thing.

------
klochner
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
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
...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
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
> 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.

~~~
daniel_solano
Well, it's not something that I have definitely concluded, but in my opinion,
the speaker has lost significant credibility. If someone is willing to lie and
bully in order to voice a particular opinion, why should I not expect them to
lie or bully in trying persuade me to that opinion? No, it isn't a given, but
that's the way I see it.

------
rexreed
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
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.

------
patdennis
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.

------
brudgers
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/943/943235...](http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/943/943235545/943235545_201012_990PF.pdf)
[page 7].

See also "Who Owns TED?" <http://www.ted.com/pages/42>

~~~
TeMPOraL
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.

------
sams99
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_abo...](http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice.html)
\-- 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).

------
alecco
Released video. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI>

"This idea is an oracle of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by
democrats." Clearly against bi-partisan and not pro-democrat.

Very bad move by TED. Also, the quality of _many_ TED presentations is a joke
so they can't pull that card.

~~~
scott_s
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
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
"Less bad" != "Good"

------
bgilroy26
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_o...](http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html)

------
thaumaturgy
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>

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.)

~~~
WalterBright
His talk makes the mistake that spending money is what drives the economy.
This is a fundamental error.

What drives the economy is people creating value. When people have created
value, they can exchange that value for things they want from other people who
have created value.

Simply handing people money to spend is not stimulative because it does not
create value. Put another way, taking money from A and giving it to B so B can
buy things from A does not (and cannot) make A wealthier.

The route to greater wealth for A and B is that both A and B specialize in
creating things that the other wants. Then, they trade, and each winds up with
a higher standard of living than if each tried to do both. Economies are built
on the greater efficiency that comes from specialization, and the resulting
trade.

~~~
ealloc
> Simply handing people money to spend is not stimulative because it does not
> create value. Put another way, taking money from A and giving it to B so B
> can buy things from A does not (and cannot) make A wealthier.

Sure they can, according to some models.

Here's the argument: Say A and B produce goods for each other, and so A might
buy something from B for $5, and B might come back and buy something from A
with the same $5. They are happily creating value, trading back and forth.
Now, say something scares A so that he wants to save some of his money instead
of spend. Then B is getting less income from A, and so she also becomes
worried about her future income and spends less. Then A gets even less money,
and is even less willing to spend. As you can see there is a feedback cycle
where A and B produce (and spend) less and less. This is a recession.

Now give B some money, possibly even taken from A. Now B is getting a more
reliable income, an is more willing to spend on A, who thus earns more and
becomes more willing to spend on B, and so on in positive feedback.

This is basically Krugman's "Babysitting Co-op" scenario.

~~~
brc
This is only true if you believe recessions are caused by a lack of
confidence, rather than by negative returns on bad choices.

It also assumes that A stuffs the money into the mattress rather than lending
it to C, who uses the money to create something that B wants to buy.

It's a very simplistic two-part scenario and has a lot of problems, not in the
least what the 'something scares A' part of it. It also assumes that nobody
else wants to buy products from B.

In fact the more I read it, the less I am convinced it has any merit at all.

~~~
aptwebapps
_In fact the more I read it, the less I am convinced it has any merit at all._

Which? The model ealloc describes or the Babysitting Co-op scenario? They
aren't actually the same.

------
spacemanaki
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
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.

------
twelvechairs
> 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).

------
steve8918
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.

------
dkhenry
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
"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
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.

------
daenz

        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?

~~~
Gormo
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.

~~~
daenz
> Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political

Disagree. If the result of certain economic practices result in social
inequality, is that entirely political? Economics is a social science, so why
should some results be only political? It's not as black and white as you make
it sound.

~~~
Gormo
> Disagree. If the result of certain economic practices result in social
> inequality, is that entirely political?

The _concept_ of social inequality is inherently political. You can formulate
methods of quantifying anything, but if what you're quantifying is inherently
political in the first place, it doesn't make it any more objective or
empirical.

> Economics is a social science

Exactly. Most social sciences are based upon subjective value systems and not
objective empirical data; they're not really sciences in the same sense as
physics, chemistry, or biology.

~~~
daenz
If I understand your point then, it's that nothing other than empirical data
should be presented at TED? Then I should suggest you stop watching TED videos
then, because this talk isn't a first to touch on political subjects.

~~~
Gormo
I'm not saying that at all - I'm just responding to the comparison involving
some new scientific concept having potentially controversial implications.

TED conferences are discussions of _ideas_ , and ideas are often engender
controversy; some of them might influence people toward one political position
or another, but that doesn't mean that the ideas don't have some relevance or
value _outside_ of politics.

In this case, though, I can't blame the TED organizers for eschewing the
discussion of ideas that are _entirely_ political, and which are ultimately
_only_ about engaging the controversy itself.

~~~
daenz
> ideas that are entirely political, and which are ultimately only about
> engaging the controversy itself.

If you read the same article I did, that's not the reason they claimed, so I
don't know where you're getting that from. Here's the relevant portion:

> 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.

It says nothing about the talk being only about engaging controversy, nor
about the idea being entirely political. The reason was that it had potential
to rile people up. You are confusing an idea that will unavoidably rile people
up with an idea that is intended to rile people up. They are not the same.

------
mcantelon
"TED: politically safe ideas worth spreading."

------
Tossrock
Relevant pg essay: <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).

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

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

------
smsm42
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.

------
389401a
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.

~~~
anotherthrow
>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.

------
hristov
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.

------
pippy
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
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.

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

~~~
daenz
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_l...](http://www.ted.com/conversations/1950/ted_s_6000_price_tag_limits_i.html)

One ticket went for $33k
[http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a...](http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a_ticket_to_ted.html)

~~~
waterlesscloud
How much is a ticket to their youtube channel?

~~~
grecy
(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.

------
trotsky
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

------
jonah
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>

------
sbierwagen
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
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
> 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.

------
joejohnson
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.

------
Aftershock21
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.

------
aaronh
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.

------
johngalt
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?

------
alan_cx
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.

------
mkopinsky
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

------
Codhisattva
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."

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

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

------
Bud
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.

------
tallpapab
tl;dr; Unpolished speaker is right.

------
malachismith
Censorship is censorship. End of story.

------
borism
_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?

------
horsehead
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.

------
wavephorm
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
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.

------
DavidAbrams
"Astroturfing"?

Come on, use real words that mean something.

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

