But when the video was submitted to TED’s US headquarters for publication on the organisation’s official YouTube channel, it was rejected.
The reason? The talk “did not adhere to the TEDx content guidelines.”
A defence of dissent—silenced
Foster’s talk drew on the Covid-19 experience, arguing that during the pandemic, the space for critical thought collapsed. Dissenters were vilified and dialogue gave way to dogma.
She described how critics of mainstream Covid responses were smeared with labels—“a danger to public health… a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist… probably a prepper or a cooker… almost surely a far-right extremist and probably racist to boot.”
Drawing comparisons with the Cultural Revolution and the rise of Nazi Germany, she warned that the marginalisation of dissent has deep historical roots—where enemies of the state are manufactured to maintain social control.
Foster recalled being labelled a “granny killer,” defamed online (despite never having a Twitter account), and receiving death threats for questioning lockdown policies.
“Well, I didn’t shut up,” she said. “And today, more than four years on… hundreds of books, academic papers, and tragic personal stories confirm I was right.”
“The lockdowns didn’t save lives. They were rather a massive human sacrifice induced by fear, politics, and money,” she added.
A bureaucracy that cannot handle dissent
By December 2024, with the video
still unpublished, TEDxUNSW informed Foster that the US team had flagged her talk for further review.
She was asked to submit additional evidence to substantiate her claims—particularly those relating to lockdowns, mass vaccination, and censorship.
Foster complied, providing a detailed annotation backed by peer-reviewed studies, public health data, and academic commentary. But it wasn’t enough.
On 22 December, the local team relayed a list of statements TED deemed “potentially contentious,” including her description of lockdowns as a “massive human sacrifice,” her comparisons to authoritarian regimes, and her criticisms of public health leaders.
Despite acknowledging that her arguments were “compelling,” TEDx informed Foster on 21 March 2025 that the talk had been formally rejected—and could not be published on any platform.
“We were truly disappointed that TEDx did not approve your talk,” the organisers wrote to Foster, “especially given how insightful and important your message is.”
Surprised—particularly after months of collaboration—Foster asked for an official explanation. TED’s US office responded:
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.
TED, a platform that claims to champion bold ideas, has censored University Professor Gigi Foster, who spoke out in defense of free speech and the right to dissent.
blog.maryannedemasi.com
of course ANY organization that operates long enough slides further and further left towards authoritarian oppression
