Controversial opinion here: I don't have a problem with or hate TED.

I look at it as a cool way to get little insights into new things. That's it. It's bite size chunks of over-simplified problem/solutions presented in a way that I can understand. The fact that the talks range anywhere from 6-20 minutes make it obvious that any presented solution is going to be oversimplified. No one thinks that watching a TED talk will make you a master in any area of study. No one thinks watching a TED is going to change the world. It exposes people to new ideas. And if those new ideas have to be wrapped in a easily digestible talk, then so be it.

The fact that TED attracts X visitors to their site and Y listeners to their podcasts and those visitors are not on facebook or upworthy or watching cats on youtube for Z minutes is a positive thing.

Think about it: an actual scientist who produces actual knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights! This is beyond popularisation. This is taking something with value and substance and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing. This is not the solution to our most frightening problems – rather this is one of our most frightening problems.

Why exactly is this a problem? Because only the smartest, most intelligent people who have the time to digest numerous papers that usually reside behind paywalls should be able to learn about something? or because scientists asking for private donations have to up their presentations skills? Malcolm Gladwell would exist with or without TED, so I'm not sure how that example was even relevant.

This is only from my vantage point of watching TED talks on my computer. I have no idea the things that happen at the conferences - the people who may meet or the collaborations that may happen. I certainly hope that throwing a bunch of smart people in a room together would have some sort of positive impact on something but who knows.