Supporting open dialogue, thoughtful debate, and critical thinking about issues affecting local communities is an important part of TED and TEDx’s mission…[However] talks should not attack political and public health leaders, promote their own initiatives or business endeavours, denigrate those who don’t share the speaker’s own beliefs, use polarising ‘us vs. them’ language and divisive rhetoric, or broadly dismiss peer-reviewed research around science and health. Upon further review of the associated materials and talk content, we therefore determined that Foster’s talk did not adhere to the TEDx content guidelines and will not be added to our YouTube channel.”Foster pushed back, arguing that her talk aligned with TED’s stated mission to “spread ideas that spark conversation, deepen understanding, and drive meaningful change.” She said the rejection misrepresented her content and stressed that her statements were “backed by studies of high intellectual and scientific rigour.” She provided citations covering everything from censorship and vaccine mandates to excess deaths and lockdown impacts. But TED never responded—and still refuses to publish the talk on its platform. TED Abandons Its Own Mission The implications extend far beyond one speaker or one talk. TED, a platform that built its reputation on hosting challenging, uncomfortable—even radical—ideas, now appears unwilling to engage with narratives that challenge institutional power. Foster’s talk was not incendiary. It was measured, historically grounded, and supported by evidence. But it questioned the public health consensus—and that, it seems, is now off-limits. This isn’t just ironic; it’s an abandonment of TED’s own mission. TED has previously published talks on alien intelligence, psychic phenomena, and utopian futures. Yet a sober, data-driven critique of pandemic policies by a respected economist? That, apparently, was too dangerous to air. And TED is not alone. Across the digital landscape, we’re witnessing a broader pattern. Platforms once celebrated for fostering open dialogue are quietly narrowing the boundaries of acceptable thought. Foster’s message was a warning—about how powerful institutions can manipulate public perception, weaponise fear, and suppress dissent, all while cloaking themselves in the language of public good. She urged audiences to stay alert to manipulation disguised as altruism and to “celebrate forums at which people are allowed and encouraged to think, discuss, critically analyse, and ponder aloud.” Instead, TED became the very thing she warned against: a gatekeeper of permissible opinion, enforcing orthodoxy behind the smokescreen of “community guidelines.” For a platform that once prided itself on promoting bold thinking, TED’s censorship of Foster’s talk is a moment of institutional retreat—and intellectual cowardice. WATCH the full video uploaded by Brownstone Institute Read more at: Brownstone.org
Supreme Court grants DOGE access to Social Security data, exempts it from FOIA disclosures
By Laura Harris // Share
Climate change skepticism in floods: Aussie farmers push back against climate dogma
By Willow Tohi // Share
U.K.’s digital ID push exploits immigration crisis, critics warn
By Willow Tohi // Share
Radiological false flag feared in Los Angeles as riots escalate – could trigger mass evacuation
By finnheartley // Share