TEDx has completely destroyed everything I thought of TED. I used to think of TED as a place of science where things are well vetted but TEDx has thrown everything away that they have built up in credibility, in my opinion.

Very true, but I think their brand has also been hurt by the vacuous nature some of the presentations have (for example the one Amanda Palmer gave regarding crowdfunding).

You talk about TEDx like if it is a single entity, but it is actually thousands of individuals making independent decisions, with minimal oversight from TED. So of course there are going to be a few mistakes and if anything we should respect TED for opening up their brand and allowing experimentation.

The whole point is staying alert to see these mistakes, whether they come from TEDx organizers or from TED itself because nobody is right 100% of the time.

Combining your brand name with minimal oversight is a poor choice. TEDx has a very strong signalling mechanism to me, which is "I couldn't get my ideas accepted anywhere else, but I think they are important enough for TED".

For most things, opening up is noble. But not for a brand -- can you imagine Apple allowing other companies to use their brand for experimentation? Or Coca-Cola?

Those brands are for-profit and opening up may indeed not make sense financially.

TED is a non-profit, and their goal is to build an efficient platform for sharing ideas (and not only theirs). In this regard, opening up makes total sense, even if brand damage is a risk. (hence the respect)

Even TED was not immune to that. See the aquatic apes talk.

>a wide variety of nutters and pseudoscientists that have wrecked their brand

For those who aren't aware of this plague of bad quality TEDx talks, Sam Hyde's "2070 Paradigm Shift"[0] is a very entertaining, self-conscious deconstruction of such poor TEDx talks.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0

TED ruined their brand with Eric X. Li's talk.

I haven't seen the talk.

But if the Billion+ people in China believe in their system, then it is important for us to hear their perspective.

Its like all those damn libertarians. I hate their perspective, but damn it, I'm gonna listen to them. Libertarians are central to the changing Republican Party (especially in younger Republicans), so I must understand their viewpoint moving forward.

I may disagree, but its important enough that I need to listen.

The problem is, a libertarian will tell you their ideology because they believe in it. A CPC member knows the situation is bunk and is just in it for the guanxi; they don't even want a debate. They aren't believers, just opportunists.

I just saw the talk. Eric X. Li seems to believe in the CPC pretty strongly.

Here's a universal truth. Outside of sociopaths, a person must believe in his work in order to excel in his (or her) job.

Eric X. Li was a Legislative Councilmember in Hong Kong... a rather finely run district (probably one of the best run districts) in that country. And based on the talk, it sounds like he believed in himself, in the system of his culture, and believed in his work most of all.

It is alien, and definitely wrong to our perspective. But do remember, he lived this stuff for nearly 10 years of his life. He is one of the few English speakers I have ever seen describe the Chinese political system to me.

To call him just an "opportunist" is an insult to his work, and his bravery. He came to America to stand up in front of a crowd and then bash Democracy. And he wasn't ignorant to our culture either. So I'd have to give him an A+ on public speaking for sure.

I have lived in the PRC for 7 and a half years, all the officials I've met during that time are quite cynical about the whole system. Also, communism is an ideal that doesn't really exist within the PRC itself, it just sounds sexier than authoritarian aristocratic oligarchy.

Locally, I can't even debate the pros and cons of the system here; there are no true believers to be found. But we hear stories about outsiders who buy the propaganda and are quite disappointed about the realities.

Not do demean you or anything...

But most Chinese I talk to seem to have your opinion. Li's opinion was interesting _because_ it deviated from the norm. :-)

While you may be cynical about the system, I personally have been waiting to hear the perspective from someone who actually does believe in it. I've never heard this train of argument before.

You won't meet such a person easily in real life, who isn't cynical about the "chinese dream" or "harmonious society" or the "three represents." I'm not unique in this at all.

Li is like Kaifu or any of the other VCs and/or tech leaders here: they have to be optimistic about China, their entire lively hood depends on it. A company cannot succeed in China without a very good relationship with the government.

>But if the Billion+ people in China believe in their system, then it is important for us to hear their perspective.

I don't believe for 1 second that 1E+9 people in China believe in their system. In any case it's not an assumption to throw around lightly much less take it for granted.