[alexashka]

Is there any actual content in this article? Other than how awesome TED is?

Did they address a single concern or critique of TED in this article?

No... Just that it's 'awesome'.

Well ok then TED organizers... Thanks for reminding us that you think you're so great, you feel no need to listen to anyone.

[Others]

I'm not sure it really is as pandering as you make it out to be. In some places I wasn't sure what the author thought of TED at all. For example, this sentence is particularly pointed: "Where an audience that gave a standing ovation to Ed Snowden a couple of years ago happily wears tracking devices on their badges that allows fellow attendees to know where in the facility they are within a few meters."

[wrs]

Amusing on the surface, but of course that feature is for the benefit of the audience (and quite useful--the breaks are a bit of a zoo with 1000 people milling about), and they explained from the stage how to turn it off when desired, so he is reaching a little bit with that one.

[fabulist]

The implication wasn't meant to be that the organizers nefariously distributed these badges insisting that if participants had nothing to hide they had nothing to fear. It was that the participants will clap for whoever is onstage without thinking deeply about what they are saying or believing in what they are advocating. They'll cheer on Edward Snowden but they won't consider the implications of the technology they're using.

[nailer]

It also omits and response to the most obvious thing about TED: thanks to TEDx, it's brand has become associated with fake science, wishful thinking advocates, and other fraudsters.