Why Media Lab thought it was doing right by secretly accepting Epstein’s money • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by matthewdgreen » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:47 AM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #5

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…

right. the veil of anonymity was torn apart in this case. this doesn't seem like a robust test case for Lessig's theory of anonymity.

Lessig's theory of anonymous donations seems to have been carefully developed for the sole purpose of exonerating Ito, who is Lessig's friend. It's not like there's some new revelation that's come out since Lessig wrote his piece.

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

#22

Post by wrs » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:08 AM UTC

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…

To me the danger sign is that, if you’re doing anonymous donations properly, it would be impossible to solicit them. I mean, you wouldn’t know who to talk to! If the donor visits the institution, it’s just some random person with no reason for special treatment.

If there was an arms-length “anonymous fund” that people could donate to without even the development department knowing who they are, that would be the only way to have truly anonymous donations. And then I think the moral argument would make perfect sense.

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

#23

Post by bitL » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:11 AM UTC

wyck wrote: post #18

nosseo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expos…

How do you know that culture inside Media Lab was "completely corrupt and toxic"? From my experience, it was (is?) a super cool place and most researchers didn't have any clue what was going on with the funding. I bet there are many universities where revolts would happen if true donors and their actions were revealed. You even have whole famous universities named after robber barons.

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

#24

Post by dirtybird04 » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:22 AM UTC

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.

These are nice achievements. Impressive, even. But that's a very low bar for a "hero" imo.

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

#25

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

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.

Ito was the chairman of Creative Commons for the six years (2006-2012) and championed, among other things, Wikipedia adopting the CC license in 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joi_Ito#Career

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

#26

Post by xiaolingxiao » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:26 AM UTC

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…

Concur with this. According to friends who works in the university's development department, anonymous donations are often used by people whose kids will attend , or are attending the university. So it's the parents' way of being discrete w/o outing their kids as "undeserving".

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

#27

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:27 AM UTC

The article seems to imply at points that power and influence won't accrue much as a result of anonymous donations, which I think is wrong. You lose the public prestige, sure, but the powerful people behind the scenes know you donated, as with Media Lab, and that power and influence isn't much diminished. In fact it's the behind the scenes type of power that can be the most effective and, as we see with Epstein, most corrosive.

Anonymity may shield the recipient from reputational damage of associating with a bad actor, but doesn't take away all of the benefits to the donor.

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

#28

Post by pesmhey » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:37 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #27

The article seems to imply at points that power and influence won't accrue much as a result of anonymous donations, which I think is wrong. You lose the public prestige, sure, but the powerful people behind the scenes know you donated, as with Media Lab, and that power and influence isn't much diminished. In fact it's the behind the scenes type of power that can be the most effective and, as we see with Epstein, most…

The episode of Curb, where Ted Danson donates anonymously!! If you look in my comment history, I’ve made the same exact point.

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

#29

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:42 AM UTC

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #25

kyledrake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ito was the chairman of Creative Commons for the six years (2006-2012) and championed, among other things, Wikipedia adopting the CC license in 2009. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joi_Ito#Career

To me that just says he agreed with some good ideas and was influential in their community, which is good. Doesn't read as "hero" though, it just tells me he maybe wanted to do good things. And good intentions are fine and all, but it seems like he got himself pretty dirty trying to further them. Good deeds don't always follow from good intentions.

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

#30

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 1:47 AM UTC

bitL wrote: post #23

wyck wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expos…

How do you know that culture inside Media Lab was "completely corrupt and toxic"? From my experience, it was (is?) a super cool place and most researchers didn't have any clue what was going on with the funding. I bet there are many universities where revolts would happen if true donors and their actions were revealed. You even have whole famous universities named after robber barons.

> a super cool place and most researchers didn't have any clue what was going on with the funding.

I don't know. I think witnessing the lab director giving tours to an old man accompanied by very young foreign women who raise suspicions that they might be victims of human trafficking, should make people at least consider that there is something shady going on with the funding.