Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

#11

Post by Alex3917 »

tlb wrote: post #3

Normally, organizations accept anonymous donations from people because of modesty or privacy -- the donors don't want their name on the wall or in the press. They have a mechanism for that called "anonymous donations", but the mechanism isn't meant to guarantee that no reputational benefits at all can be gotten by the donor. In this case, several people knew he had donated to MIT and he invited professors to his dinn…

> Lessig's utilitarian calculus doesn't convince me it's OK to take money anonymously from villains.

Meh. It's not OK, but it's not that bad either. Even if what Ito did was wrong, which at least with hindsight it clearly was, the guy is still a hero.

Even the allegations about him using his position to raise LP money for his fund is somewhat dubious, given that he's much more famous for being a venture capitalist than he is for running the media lab; it's literally why he was hired for that job in the first place. It was bad judgment, and maybe he deserved to get fired for it, but as scandals go it's fairly benign.

Re: Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

#12

Post by lidHanteyk »

There's an easy answer for this, although it's uncomfortable for the Epsteins of the world. Simply formalize the entire process. Have a dedicated system for handling not just Very Important People, but Very Rich Assholes. When VRAs want to give money, make it clear that the money will be marked as from "an anoymous piece of shit" rather than "a generous donor". When they want to walk around the lab, make it clear that they'll be wearing a nametag with "VRA" printed in big red letters.

Sure, take money from child slavers if you must, but don't glorify them or even give them the decency of polite society. Mark them for who they are, if you know it.

Re: Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

#14

Post by kyledrake »

Alex3917 wrote: post #11
tlb wrote: post #3

Normally, organizations accept anonymous donations from people because of modesty or privacy -- the donors don't want their name on the wall or in the press. They have a mechanism for that called "anonymous donations", but the mechanism isn't meant to guarantee that no reputational benefits at all can be gotten by the donor. In this case, several people knew he had donated to MIT and he invited professors to his dinn…

> Lessig's utilitarian calculus doesn't convince me it's OK to take money anonymously from villains. Meh. It's not OK, but it's not that bad either. Even if what Ito did was wrong, which at least with hindsight it clearly was, the guy is still a hero. Even the allegations about him using his position to raise LP money for his fund is somewhat dubious, given that he's much more famous for being a venture capitalist th…

I would love to hear your perspective on why Joi Ito is a hero.

Re: Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

#15

Post by Alex3917 »

kyledrake wrote: post #14
Alex3917 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lessig's utilitarian calculus doesn't convince me it's OK to take money anonymously from villains. Meh. It's not OK, but it's not that bad either. Even if what Ito did was wrong, which at least with hindsight it clearly was, the guy is still a hero. Even the allegations about him using his position to raise LP money for his fund is somewhat dubious, given that he's much more famous for being a venture capitalist th…

I would love to hear your perspective on why Joi Ito is a hero.

He was an early investor in Six Apart and Technorati, was one of the top 100 bloggers, and was one of the first to clearly articulate the ability of the Internet to change society. He was also on the board of Creative Commons, ICANN, Mozilla, etc.

Also his sister is one of the top Internet researchers, and iirc she has said that she became interested in the field because of his early entrepreneurial career.

Re: Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

#17

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

Alex3917 wrote: post #15
kyledrake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to hear your perspective on why Joi Ito is a hero.

He was an early investor in Six Apart and Technorati, was one of the top 100 bloggers, and was one of the first to clearly articulate the ability of the Internet to change society. He was also on the board of Creative Commons, ICANN, Mozilla, etc. Also his sister is one of the top Internet researchers, and iirc she has said that she became interested in the field because of his early entrepreneurial career.

>and was one of the first to clearly articulate the ability of the Internet to change society.

A few years ago, it would have been considered a given that the Internet’s ability to change society was a good thing. I don’t think people take that position as unequivocally as before.

So in judging Ito, you have “Hypes the Internet” vs “helps normalize the reputation a child rapist”

I am not so sure that the good outweighs the bad

Re: Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

#18

Post by wyck »

nosseo wrote: post #6
algaeontoast wrote: post #2

Nobody should be trying to cover for the Media Lab in any way or form. If you're a professional and you take money in this way you are complicit, period. An article claiming Epstein was a victim because pedophiles and rapists are "victims" would have been less vapid than what Vox focuses on in this article.

Hey! I'm the article author, and I didn't write about what the Media Lab was thinking to give them "cover". As I put it in the article, the Media Lab's actions were so horrific that it brings into question the whole philosophy behind anonymous donations. So why take a close look at their justifications? Well, a couple reasons. Firstly, I think it's interesting when smart people argue themselves into incredibly bad de…

I think the point for this particular case, which you did allude to, is that there was nothing anonymous about the relationship. Everyone knew about it, some of them implicated directly in the actual court case (Minsky). This is more about a completely corrupt and toxic culture at Media Lab. It would have been more interesting to look deeper into Joi Ito for example and the posturing of several key players when exposed, than wax poetic about the blanket of anonymity.

Re: Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

#19

Post by [deleted] »

nosseo wrote: post #6
algaeontoast wrote: post #2

Nobody should be trying to cover for the Media Lab in any way or form. If you're a professional and you take money in this way you are complicit, period. An article claiming Epstein was a victim because pedophiles and rapists are "victims" would have been less vapid than what Vox focuses on in this article.

Hey! I'm the article author, and I didn't write about what the Media Lab was thinking to give them "cover". As I put it in the article, the Media Lab's actions were so horrific that it brings into question the whole philosophy behind anonymous donations. So why take a close look at their justifications? Well, a couple reasons. Firstly, I think it's interesting when smart people argue themselves into incredibly bad de…

[deleted]

Re: Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money

#20

Post by omegaworks »

nosseo wrote: post #6
algaeontoast wrote: post #2

Nobody should be trying to cover for the Media Lab in any way or form. If you're a professional and you take money in this way you are complicit, period. An article claiming Epstein was a victim because pedophiles and rapists are "victims" would have been less vapid than what Vox focuses on in this article.

Hey! I'm the article author, and I didn't write about what the Media Lab was thinking to give them "cover". As I put it in the article, the Media Lab's actions were so horrific that it brings into question the whole philosophy behind anonymous donations. So why take a close look at their justifications? Well, a couple reasons. Firstly, I think it's interesting when smart people argue themselves into incredibly bad de…

>I think it's interesting when smart people argue themselves into incredibly bad decisions that anyone could've warned them against

Ito was warned, multiple times. Why are you expending any energy searching for a justification?

What is motivating this search?

Post reply on HN