This was very preachy , repetitive, and dumbed-down. It also goes to show the lack of intelligence applied to the rule-out process as much as the process for approval of videos. 9 out of 10 of the "good science" criteria were not even related to science, but focused on consensus, which the author conflates with validity. Indeed, most of TED's "thou shalt nots" simple boil down to not offending the wrong people. I agree with not platforming fringe beliefs, but not allowing any challenging or provocative talks or statements is a recipe for mediocrity (hence the "late night infomercial" criticism leveled at TED). Most TED talks are inspirational but too vague to apply to anything--and that doesn't mean that they are entirely without value. But TED is definitely overrated. With just about any topic that is even remotely controversial being rebranded "hate speech" at the drop of a pin, it is virtually impossible to have intelligent public discourse in any venue in America. Yes, we should not waste peoples' time (or further ruin what's left of TED's rapidly waning credibility) by having flat Earth and tinfoil hat seminars, the idea that legitimate science simply consists of whatever the majority consensus is, is dangerously stupid.