The article is full of bold assertions with no (or inadquate) evidence:

"TED is not simply “engaging” and “entertaining” but a specific type of entertainment that is increasingly out of touch and exclusionary."

How do you measure "out of touch and exclusionary"?

"At first, I thought I was laughing alone; however, it turns out that lots of other people are equally unimpressed by the current state of TED. From the feedback I’ve received, I’m not the only one who does not take TED very seriously or worse, views the whole project as suspect."

Wow so people who follow you agree with you. Shocker.

"So many of the TED talks take on the form of those famous patent medicine tonic cure-all pitches of previous centuries, as though they must convince you not through the content of what’s being said but through the hyper-engaging style of the delivery."

Really? Which ones?

"TED attempts to present itself as fresh, cutting edge, and outside the box but often fails to deliver. It’s become the Urban Outfitters of the ideas world, finding “cool” concepts suitable for being packaged and sold to the masses, thereby extinguishing the “cool” in the process. Cutting-edge ideas not carrying the Apple-esque branding are difficult to find."

As measured by ???

"At TED, “everyone is Steve Jobs” and every idea is treated like an iPad."

I've learned over time that when people start making universal assertions like this, they're usually lacking in data but full of shit.

Wow. I agree the TED brand has been cheapened a lot by the various TEDx affiliated events (which mainly seem to be B and C list celebrities or wannabes trying to self-promote), but to call it "silicon valley corporatism" is way off the mark.

I guess I don't even understand what "corporatism" is in this context. Is he saying that people who develop and deploy technologies are less interesting when speaking about those technologies and their effects than an academic who studies the social implications of technology?

I see the main problem not being the corporatism so much as the emphasis on rather messianic speakers, who stake out stark, very strong claims with few caveats, and claim a giant revolution is happening or imminent.

There's something interesting about that, so perhaps the argument should be against people who watch only TED talks, not about TED existing; it's one way to get one style of information. But it definitely is one style of information; it's a world in which AI researchers are represented by Ray Kurzweil, technology theorists by Clay Shirky, videogames by Gabe Zichermann, etc.

The author of this piece apparently isn't familiar with the correct usage of the term corporatism. It has very little do with with promoting business interests. Rather it is a political philosophy that spawned, among other movements, Italian fascism.

Such ignorance is particularly appalling given that the author couches his analysis in a sociological framework.

Edit: Even worse, the author is listed as a graduate student in sociology. How embarrassing for the University of Maryland.

When I first watched this Leonard Susskind talk about Richard Feynman (link and transcript below), I assumed the sentence: I actually don't think Feynman would have liked this event. was referring to that entire TED event.

I'm still not totally sure. :-)

But really Susskind was talking about the talk he had just given.. the general pattern of Paying Humble Deference To A Great Mind.

Of course, the Susskind talk is actually really really great. But there does seem to be a lot of baloney in the TED proceedings lately.

http://www.ted.com/talks/leonard_susskind_my_friend_richard_...

So I think I'll just finish up by saying I actually don't think Feynman would have liked this event. I think he would have said, "I don't need this." But how should we honor Feynman? How should we really honor Feynman? I think the answer is we should honor Feynman by getting as much baloney out of our own sandwiches as we can.

> At TED, “everyone is Steve Jobs” and every idea is treated like an iPad.

Great quote, that says it all

Check out TED 2012 lineup and make your own decision. Did the headline TED event lower its bar? I feel, the answer is YES. The average level goes down, while the program still has a few stars to watch.

http://blog.ted.com/2012/01/11/ted2012-speaker-lineup-reveal...

This blog post is knowledge hipsterism.

Meh, some TED talks are good, some are bad, they got watered down as the years went on. C'est la vie

"TED’s ‘revolutionary ideas’ mask capitalism as usual, giving it a narrative of progress and change.”

I feel like I am out of the loop on something here. Is this person insinuating that capitalism is a sort of masked evil that's propped up as a good thing in our blind western/democratic society? If so what is the recommended alternative?

Agree with other posters, it's not that TED is corporate - it's been suffering from dilution of the brand through TEDx, and (perhaps my biggest beef) is the liberal slant on some talks asking for more public funding or making political commentary. Not sure if others feel this way though, it could be my own bias.

He takes the time to link to "patent medicine" and "swamp root" but not to a single TED talk illustrating his point? Lame.