"I have less faith in the internet as a place where a conversation can happen, and the timelessness of it decontextualizes."

To me it sounds an awful lot like not wanting to be scrutinized or held accountable for what he says.

I also find this rather disappointing as it excludes anyone who is unable, for whatever reason, to be at his talks from hearing what he has to say. Given how influential he's been in this domain, this sadness me quite a bit.

> I have less faith in the internet as a place where a conversation can happen

This feels a bit ironic, given he's built an enterprise on enabling conversations to happen on the internet, though arguably only with a limited set of people.

> , and the timelessness of it decontextualizes.

Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean. Perhaps it's a language barrier thing, but I can't parse that into something sensible.

1. Does the same thing not also apply to the blog post he authored, which contains the exact same points?

2. Is a talk where you get a big stage to preach your opinion from and take two questions at the end really the best way to do this? As opposed to say, a panel discussion or similar.