I don't get it. The post seems to imply that donor X banned person Y from TED, but didn't donor X put person Y in TED in the first place? He just withdrew his invitation, no?
I don't get why people are upvoting this. Didn't anybody read the article? It clearly says that the donor made a call and requested that person Y be uninvited. It's also very clear that the donor was not involved in inviting the person to the 2011 conference.
I sent a personal email to Chris Anderson, TED’s ‘curator,’ asking for an explanation. I got it. Here it is: I was uninvited to this year’s TED conference because the major TED donor I’ve referenced above and with whom, for reasons unknown, I have now not spoken to for more than two years (TED’s leadership tells me that this is because this person and I have had a ‘falling out’ of some kind) had seen my picture in the TED 2011 ‘Facebook.’ This person had called the conference organizers to express that my presence at the conference might result in this person feeling some ‘stress’ and – perhaps – not enjoying the conference as much as this person otherwise might..
Edit: No, it clearly wasn't just a matter of withdrawing sponsorship. It's right there two paragraphs further down the article. Please, just RTFA!
The point is that TED’s leadership was unwilling to run the risk of one of their biggest donors feeling ‘stressed’ at TED
Yes, but the author is making it into an issue about censorship, i.e. any TED donor can ban anyone they like. As I understand it, the donor sent the author to TED in his place, and now he withdrew that offer, so it's a non-issue.
It's as if the TC author didn't even read the letter (or, gasp, has an agenda).
It doesn't say donors send people in their place. It says donors can designate an attendee. It looks almost certain that the donor who pays 100k also gets to go to the conference. If the donor didn't get to go, then the part in the article talking about the donor not having as good of a time if the attendee weren't booted makes little sense.
The article also makes it clear that unimportant attendees can be booted by donors... and apparently barred from coming back in future years as well.
I don't know if it's the "little people", but person Y knew that she was only going to TED because the donor had assigned a substitute. If the donor decided to go himself, or to send another substitute, why not? I don't see why person Y would assume the situation was permanent, when reading the one explanatory sentence person Y wrote immediately made me (an observer) understand otherwise.
No, there are three people involved. X & Z are major donors, Y is the author of the post. For the 2009 conference, X nominated Y, who paid $6k to go. For the 2011 conference, Y applied and was accepted, but Z got him blacklisted.
That isn't what I read. To me it sounded like person X put person Y in TED -- but then rich sponser Z saw person Y in a photo, told the organizers this was unacceptable, and now person Y is perma-banned.
