Seldom is there any 'call to action' at the end of one. Tech, Entertainment and Design are ALL entertainment in a TED talk.

No one gets a clean slate to work with. Radical changes come only after the current system is fatal broken, perhaps under the wight of its own mass and flaws, but Bratton's notion that a 15 minute talk could ever move the masses to risk their modest comforts for the unknown outcome of some revolution is quite a stretch.

I'm sorry that the investor's answer pissed this guy off so much that he is ready to burn down TED because he now thinks of it as some version of Fox News. As controlled as he seems on stage here I think his emotions have lead him away from the possible, the small changes that add up to something.

TED as entertainment certainly "works" for me. But there's also a certain level of pretension about the whole project, a sort of "look at us hip technology types talking about big ideas and designing the future more cleverly than thou" vibe that can be vaguely off-putting at times.

I'm not sure Bratton is ready to "burn down TED," though clearly he does have a chip on his shoulder. I don't think TED itself is a big problem, but it swims in a sea of often-uncritical technological optimism that can be problematic.

"Other constituencies have TED."

put my finger on "why". Part of what he says here may be a piece of what makes me uncomfortable. I think there's more, but I'm still not sure what, exactly, about Ted leaves me feeling kind of creepy.

Apparently, great ideas aren't great unless and until you can explain it to people with 10th grade vocabulary and money to donate.

I'm cynical about kickstarter, indiegogo and other crowdsourcing venues for the same reason. It's cynical to think that making an audience feel good is a suitable replacement for effective action.

Plus, I give anyone props to anyone who walks into the church on Sunday morning and explains to the congregation what's wrong with evangelism.

I welcomed this challenge of TED in the Temple of TED. Bratton made several good points that I had no problem with, but I thought lumping all TED talks as the same was not accurate. TED has great diversity and range of topics. I also have no problem with complicated topics being explained in an accessible fashion, those who want more don't have to stop with TED. I have gotten a lot of positive information and feelings from TED talks and I'd hate to see them end or be compaired to Mega-Churches and thrown out or disregarded as "bogus".

If nothing else, Bratton can help anyone who enjoys the talks adopt a suitably critical stance regarding them. This isn't to say they're uniformly "bogus" or that cynicism is the "correct" stance to take regarding them; rather, it's to recognize them for what they are - at best, engaging introductions to a topic, rather than the "last word."

TED has, in the past, suppressed some speeches when it didn't fit their mold.

His delivery gave me the impression that he's got a bit of a chip on his shoulder which distracted from his message. IMO.

TED talks rarely deal with the social architecture issues he raised. He's tilting at a windmill.

eom