News TED Conversations

Should I leave a comment on TED.com? A commenting manifesto

Posted by: Morton Bast

Commenting

You’ve just watched a TED Talk, and now you have some thoughts — about the subject, about the speaker, about life.

In the world of TED ideas, those reflections and reactions are some of our most important resources. Yet, for every 1,000 views on TED.com, only 1 viewer writes a comment in the space below the video. Perhaps the other 999 viewers had nothing to say? Somehow we doubt it.

What can a great talk comment do? It can provide more information, suggest an argument to the contrary, explain a personal connection to the subject matter — among other things. (See some of our favorite comments of 2012.) It’s also a great way to help us understand the impact that individual talks are having: A video share tells us it interested you, but a comment can tell us why.

If you’d like to start commenting, we’d love to hear from you! But before you hit submit, we’d like to let you in on a little-known secret: We do enforce the TED.com Terms of Use for comments. To guarantee that your comment will find a permanent home on the site, please keep in mind these three basic guidelines.

1. Civility. All the bold font in the world couldn’t stress this one enough. If you have even a nagging suspicion that your comment will come off as nasty and sarcastic, it probably will. We understand that some talks inspire very strong emotions, but a polite, well-worded argument communicates more effectively than rudeness — any day.

If your comment crosses the line, our moderation team will remove it and send you an email. Don’t be discouraged — just take a step back and try again. We’re not out to get you; we’re just trying to keep the discussion respectful. If you want more information, we’re always happy to talk to you about what did and didn’t work.

2. Substance
. Whether you’re lavishing praise or expressing your disagreement, the more specific the better. The best comments, both negative and positive, are those which add new levels of meaning to the talk. If possible, please try to limit the number of posts you leave on a single talk — a large number of comments from one person can be mistaken for spam.

And, of course, comments should be about the talk itself. If a TED Talk has inspired you to discuss a different but related topic, you can start a TED Conversation and let others know by tagging the talk.

3. Style
. Natural writer or not, native English speaker or not, please take a moment to proofread. If you’re more comfortable leaving the comment in a different language, go right ahead! We want to make sure that comments reflect the very best of the commenter, and that others who read your comment know just what you’re saying.

So, should you leave a comment on TED.com? Yes, please! We would love to hear what you have to say, and the same goes for our speakers. Our commenting system isn’t perfect — heck, no website’s is — but with your help, we can continue to build a thought-provoking collection of member-submitted ideas, critiques, and stories around each TED Talk.

You can contact conversations@ted.com with feedback and suggestions. Happy commenting!

Comments (17)

  • Amir Shalchi commented on Oct 19 2013

    با سلام و خسته نباشید
    Amy Webb: How I hacked online dating
    بی زحمت به علت نیاز بنده به ترجمه سخنرانی خانم امی وب از مترجمان محترم سایت حواهشمندم این فایل رو برام ترجمه کنید
    ممنون

  • Amir Shalchi commented on Oct 19 2013

    با سلام و خسته نباشید
    بی زحمت به علت نیاز بنده به ترجمه سخنرانی خانم امی وب از مترجمان محترم سایت حواهشمندم این فایل رو برام ترجمه کنید
    ممنون

  • Megan Crosby commented on Sep 23 2013

    This is awesome, thanks a billion!

    http://www.neverhadagirlfriend.net

  • kuldeep sharma commented on Sep 17 2013

    HII friends i am kuldeep if you want to know about earning tricks without investment such as free mobile recharge ,payment through cheque.
    Learn more about himachal and its tourist places and hotels.visit-www.HIMACHALUPDATES.COM

  • guri pako commented on Aug 28 2013

    If you think Deborah`s story is good,, 4 weeks ago my friend’s brother basically got a cheque for $9744 workin fourteen hours a week an their house and the’re co-worker’s mother-in-law`s neighbour was doing this for six months and got a cheque for more than $9744 parttime from their mac. follow the information on this web-site… http://www.jobs64.com

  • commented on Aug 27 2013

    I enjoy TED talks they inspire me to think.

  • commented on Aug 15 2013

    Thanxx for the information.
    http://www.shoppingandsearching.com/

  • Lance Stevens commented on Aug 7 2013

  • Farhad hemmatkhah commented on Mar 19 2013

    Thank you very much.
    http://www.hemmatkhah.com

  • commented on Mar 13 2013

    thanks

  • Osman Coskun commented on Mar 3 2013

    Thank you! You are very kind. http://www.lampenled.eu/wohnzimmerlampen/

  • Tanzania Masai commented on Mar 1 2013

    I like TED talks

  • Tanzania Masai commented on Mar 1 2013

    hi All?
    i need someone we talk about a business.
    my email joachimnas@gmail.com

  • Piotr Powtruczin commented on Feb 22 2013

    A firm called Legit Script (LegitScript.com) claims to be protecting people by labeling legitimate Canadian and other non-U.S. pharmacies as “Unapproved” or “Rogue.” This serves the big pharmaceutical interests but not the American consumer. More than that, its founder, John Horton, appears to have exploited his former government position to establish LegitScript.com for his own gain.

    The Set Up:

    In 2007, John Horton worked in the Bush White House as Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). As Horton’s LinkedIn page (accessed 3/3/2010) states:

    “I served as the primary staff person responsible for advising the “Drug Czar” and coordinating federal policy on several issues, including prescription drug-related issues (including Internet pharmacy policy) and several chemical control issues. I authored the Administration’s National Synthetic Drug Control Strategy and co-authored the President’s National Drug Control Strategy in the years from 2002 until 2007.”

    Congress had called for a report from ONDCP to propose a “strategy to stop advertisements that provide information about obtaining over the Internet drugs…without the use of a lawful prescription” (Our emphasis). Moreover, Congress’ request was limited in scope to controlled substances. Horton, as the chief staff person on this assignment, apparently switched the focus of the report from preventing access to controlled medicines without prescriptions (with which PharmacyChecker fully agrees) to denying Americans access to any type of medicine, even with a valid prescription, if coming from a Canadian pharmacy. The absurdity of this switch is that reputable licensed Canadian pharmacies require prescriptions and won’t even sell controlled substances to Americans. We believe this switch was encouraged by big pharmaceutical interests, who make less money when drugs are purchased at lower cost outside the U.S. To achieve their purpose, the report took aim at search engines as well as PharmacyChecker.com. The ONDCP’s paper stated:

    “Both Google and Yahoo use a third-party system called PharmacyChecker.com (located at PharmacyChecker.com: Compare prescription drug prices and online pharmacy ratings.) to verify whether websites seeking to advertise an online pharmacy are legitimate. However, PharmacyChecker has approved several websites from Canada that may be operating lawfully in Canada, but offer prescription drugs to United States consumers…”

    The paper noted that “not all VIPPS pharmacies appear to be recognized in the PharmacyChecker system.” [VIPPS is the verification program of the National Boards of Pharmacy in the U.S. and excludes Canadian pharmacies from membership.] The paper goes onto to draw the baseless conclusion that, “For all these reasons, PharmacyChecker is not an adequate, reliable verification system…”

    Approving safe, lawful Canadian pharmacies which require prescriptions certainly does not make PharmacyChecker.com “inadequate” or “unreliable.” Quite the contrary. Nevertheless, the paper lays out the plan that we believe Horton hatched, promoted and attempted to execute for the past three years:

    “The DEA, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or ONDCP will meet with the major Internet advertising services (Google, Yahoo and others) to encourage voluntary action such that only online pharmacies in compliance with Federal and State laws are advertised through the major Internet advertising services. Search engines will be requested to voluntarily adopt standards that comply and encourage consumer compliance with Federal and State laws and regulations, and Boards of Pharmacy standards. This will be done in consultation with the State Boards of Pharmacy through the NABP.”

    As we see it, Horton was setting the stage for his company, LegitScript.com, to use this “U.S. only” standard to displace PharmacyChecker.com as the leading certifier of online pharmacies and to pressure the search engines into blocking advertising of lower cost pharmacies in Canada and elsewhere. While Horton was a government employee, on March 20, 2007 his company’s domain name legitscript.com was registered: legitscript.com WHOIS domain registration information from Network Solutions. On April 16, 2007, Horton’s government office submitted the paper quoted above to Congress and, having planted the seed, Horton immediately left office and registered LegitScript as a for-profit company in Virginia and, later, as a not-for-profit entity in his home state of Oregon.

    This chronology indicates, at least to us, that Horton manipulated and exploited his position as Deputy Director of a White House office for his personal gain. This raises a question in our view of whether his conduct violated The US Office of Government Ethics’ Misuse of Position policy which states that “Executive branch employees must not use their public office for their own or another’s private gain.”

    Misleading Reports:

    Horton apparently approached the search engines and others to promote the use of LegitScript and/or VIPPS in place of PharmacyChecker.com (and it’s not surprising that VIPPS now endorses LegitScript as a reputable verification service). Perhaps rebuffed by these companies, Horton issued two reports, each focused on a different search engine, and each claiming that over 80% of pharmacy advertisers found were “illegal” or “rogue” when, in fact, most of these were licensed foreign pharmacies selling real medicine and requiring prescriptions.

    From his trumped up research, Horton went on to make the outrageous accusation that search engines were “sponsors” of rogue Internet pharmacies tied to “foreign (mainly Russian, Eastern Europe, and Chinese) organized criminal networks that are thought to fund other illicit activities including, in some cases, terrorism.” There is little doubt that LegitScript.com’s intention was to embarrass the search engines and cast doubt on the PharmacyChecker.com Verification Program.

    Horton’s Real Business:

    Despite LegitScript’s efforts, traffic to its site has been scant — less than 900 unique visitors per month in January 2010, compared to 104,000 per month to PharmacyChecker.com (legitscript.com’s (rank #217,488) Site Profile | Compete). However, as we see it, Horton’s purpose was not to help consumers find safe and affordable pharmacies, but to help deny Americans, especially the uninsured, access to lower priced medications. He has revealed his purpose in several ways: He dissolved LegitScript as a non-profit organization in Oregon on April 8th, 2009 and then registered LegitScript as a for-profit LLC on August 17th, 2009. At the same time, records at the Oregon Secretary of State Corporation Division show that Horton registered a firm called Evergreen Government Relations, giving the same address as LegitScript, apparently expecting to cash in on his government connections and influence on the behalf of corporate clients. A week earlier, on August 10th 2009, he abandoned his registration at the U.S. Trademark Office to use “LegitScript Certified” as a certification mark for Internet pharmacies. Working for companies to get government agencies to pressure search engines and domain registers is where the action is for John Horton.

    Making Money:

    LegitScript.com adamantly denies that it is a “front for big PhRMA” and claims that it is funded by its employees. But unlike pharmacy verification groups like VIPPS and PharmacyChecker.com, it does not charge pharmacies a fee for its verification service. So where does its revenue come from, or where does Horton get the money to fund it? The website says it offers “market research reports” regarding the Internet pharmacy and online pharmaceuticals markets. And who might be the customers of such “research”? We think it’s fair to assume that its big pharma, including big US pharmacies. LegitScript.com may not expect to make money from its verification program, and it doesn’t care because its money may come from elsewhere.

    Be On the Look Out:

    If LegitScript.com releases other “research reports,” keep in mind John Horton’s real agenda. And if search engines exclude safe, low cost pharmacies from advertising (and one recently did) or, worse yet, block them from appearing at all, we believe that LegitScript.com and John Horton, serving his masters, may have had a hand in it.

  • commented on Jan 23 2013

    I’ve watched quite a few TED talks. They inspired me to write this song: http://youtu.be/17rBYGvmV9k.

    • Morton Bast commented on Jan 24 2013

      Haha, wonderful! Thank you for sharing that. I wish all of our critiques were expressed so creatively.

      • commented on Jan 24 2013

        Thank you! You are very kind. It goes without saying that many TED talks truly are inspirational… but some of them are more like the song.