Joi Ito Resigns from M.I.T. Media Lab After Outcry over Jeffrey Epstein Ties

Post by adventured » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 5:53 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #480

xenadu02 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is well-known now. Epstein cultivated powerful connections deliberately to insulate himself from scrutiny. It seems likely that he deliberately put politicians and famous people into compromising positions to ensure their cooperation (throwing lavish parties at his mansion, supplying the drugs and the underage girls). MIT banned Epstein from donating after his Sex Offender conviction. Ito did an end-run around t…

> NYT, which then buried the story. /.../ Many papers and media outlets killed Epstein stories. So, I imagine many editors from NYT and many other papers has resigned from their jobs and their memberships in whatever professional organizations, boards, etc. they have been on, because of that? Or the press is not supposed to be held to ethical standard because... well, because they are The Press, so they are above scr…

Post by nickpinkston » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 5:54 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #405

gojomo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, 'neoteny' doesn't "usually" mean "animals with childlike features", but rather "the retention of juvenile features into adulthood". It's conjectured that a lot of humanity's advanced intelligence & culture has been achieved with the help of our species' extended retention of juvenile learning-capacity & neural plasticity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny_in_humans

Neoteny was a concept within the smart drugs, pronoia, raver-woo mysticism in the early-mid US rave culture.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 5:57 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #491

smsm42 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NYT, which then buried the story. /.../ Many papers and media outlets killed Epstein stories. So, I imagine many editors from NYT and many other papers has resigned from their jobs and their memberships in whatever professional organizations, boards, etc. they have been on, because of that? Or the press is not supposed to be held to ethical standard because... well, because they are The Press, so they are above scr…

The NYT has very prominently been in ethical collapse mode for several years now. This is just another in a line of a dozen or so scandals surrounding their credibility, or rather, their no longer existent credibility. They're the biggest joke in mainstream news in the US right now and that's not an easy thing to accomplish while Fox News still exists. There is zero chance editors and journalists at the NYT resign ov…

Post by bryanrasmussen » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 6:05 AM UTC

asveikau wrote: post #264

asveikau wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember similar stories about people who took money from Harvey Weinstein, for example there was an AIDS nonprofit he gave millions to. It all highlights the difficult job facing people tasked with taking money from donors in this way. They won't always have 20/20 hindsight. They may learn about sketchiness after they already took the money. They may be so blinded by what they see as generosity and good will that…

Anyone care to explain the down votes? I am not defending anyone implicated, or claiming knowledge of specifics, but saying that vetting donors in a world where the category of "criminal-philanthropist" is a thing probably gets difficult.

Post by jakelazaroff » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 6:25 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #487

tptacek wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think two things: * Ito's position at MIT was so compromised that, for the good of the organization, he needed to quit. He had an obligation to do so; MIT didn't owe him his role, but rather he had joined to serve MIT. He was doing so no longer. * One reason he was so compromised, in my estimation of the available information, is that he repeatedly did something egregiously wrong. Once again: I've never even heard…

> * Ito's position at MIT was so compromised that, for the good of the organization, he needed to quit. He had an obligation to do so; MIT didn't owe him his role, but rather he had joined to serve MIT. He was doing so no longer. Of course MIT has the right to fire him. I don't really understand what you're trying to argue. The question is whether they should have fired him, which in my view is entirely determined by…