TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

A new policy of censorship on TEDx, what happened to open conversations?

Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock's talks were both censored after radical atheist Jerry Coyne started a campaign to have these talks removed. Does TED really believe the public needs to be protected from new ideas? Are we not smart enough to make up our own minds?

BTW, TED's claim that the talks remain (in a secret and difficult to access corner of the web) online, so that doesn't "count" as censorship is completely disengenious. Why not have open debates bewteen Sheldrake and Coyne? Shouldn't the discussion be opened up rather than closed down?


Closing Statement from sandy stone

I think the strongest points have been made by the many, many internet bloggers who have spoken out against TED on the issue of censorship. I wish TED would have allowed me to continue posting the links, but they are shutting down this conversation early. Thankfully, the conversation continues elsewhere.

I have to say it surprising how little the TED faithful have to say in defense of TED. Even I don't think TED is all bad. I've enjoyed many of the videos posted over the years. I would suggest that anyone who likes a particular video should download it in case it does get censored at some point.

I'll give the final word to the many bloggers out there who refuse to be silenced:


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: It is a very small amount, particularly when you look at the big business medicine has become.

      There was a recent item in the news about a firm looking for investors for a promising treatment for depression that did not use drugs. It's a device that affects the brain using electrical impulses and early testing is extremely promising. But because it isn't a drug, there is no funding available for the kind of testing required for it to make it's way into common use by doctors. The device isn't going to make money for drug companies, so they won't fund it either.

      This is just one case of an alternative treatment not getting the funding it deserves because it doesn't promote profits for drug companies.

      Sorry, but Sheldrake didn't say anything seriously out-of-line on this.

      But perhaps TED doesn't want to upset the CEOs of large drug companies?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: You can watch Sheldrake's talk and see what it says. In fact, I encourage you (and everyone else) to watch it, because it sounds like you haven't seen it yet.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: That's a pretty insignificant point. Hardly worth censorship. I think most people recognize that alternative treatments don't get much funding because governments are too busy funding pharmaceutical companies.

          Again, other than offending the drug companies, this is really splitting hairs.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: From your post, it looks like you believe that anyone who questions big business, orthodox science, and materialism should be silenced.

          I guess TED shares that POV. But it isn't the foundation of "new ideas".
      • Comment deleted

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.