That's because poor people have nothing to contribute (in the eyes of TED).
At least that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. If they didn't think that, and are not in it for the money, then why else would they exclude them?
Someone tell me where I've gone wrong here, because the underlying attitude is sickening.
The audience isn't the contributors; they're the audience. The speakers don't pay; if some homeless guy had the credibility and charisma to speak at TED, there'd be nothing stopping him.
Let's be very clear, here: TED does not exclude poor people, they exclude non-extraordinarily-rich people. If Bill Gates had released mosquitos all over a crowd of poor, or middle-class people, he'd have been an asshole. Because he did it over a crowd of the uber-rich, he was awesome and promoting awareness of important problems to people who can do something about them.
The fact that TED charges so much for a seat makes them elitist and generates buzz and social proof; the fact that they share the content for free makes them egalitarian. But they focus on getting the eyeballs that are equipped to actually do something about the cool new ideas presented there.
At least that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. If they didn't think that, and are not in it for the money, then why else would they exclude them?
Someone tell me where I've gone wrong here, because the underlying attitude is sickening.