Let me start off by simply stating: #FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS. Moving on...
TED's refusal to distribute a talk by multimillionaire VC tycoon Nick Hanauer has the internet scoffing, causing reason to point out how the conference has officially jumped the shark. With so many questionable talks that are eagerly hosted by the now ubiquitous project, people are confused, to say the least. Especially Hanauer himself, who received a standing ovation at the end of his talk, which is on how America's middle class--not the wealthy--are the ones who actually create our jobs:
"We've had it backward for the last 30 years," says multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich."
Besides the talk being "too partisan," (not sure how this is so partisan, unless you're coming from an ultra partisan perspective), Hanauer's lack of original research is stated as a reason why his talk doesn't hold up to TED standards.
I'd like to know since when are all TED talks based upon research? Go through the talks yourself and you'll find tons of speeches that have very little research involved. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but experience and ideas aren't technically "research." I'm not saying some of the talks aren't entertaining or useful, but with so many people online now, terms like "research," "innovation," and "think tank" have become so benign and misused that the real meanings are completely lost on even those who use these terms the most. So is anybody really surprised about this turn of events?
Also, does this have anything to do with that new free "TED" offshoot coming up?