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

31–40 of 72 posts

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

#31

Post by ineedasername »

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.

Apparently some people raise objections and were ignored, and some staff were convince of the possibility Epstein brought trafficked women with him when he visited. It's not like those people wouldn't talk to others, their friends there, etc., the frustration and disappointment simmering beneath the surface. Sure, not everyone may have felt it, but it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

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

#32

Post by Alex3917 »

dirtybird04 wrote: post #24
Alex3917 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If playing a key role in connecting everyone on earth doesn’t make someone a hero, what does? IMHO that seems like just about the greatest possible human accomplishment.

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

#33

Post by nyolfen »

msghacq wrote: post #16

This is a much better article and interview with the whistleblower: https://www.philanthropy.com/article/whistle-blower-tells-th... Media Lab knew exactly what they were doing.

as did MIT if we are to believe ito:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/10/former-mit-medi...

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

#34

Post by seph-reed »

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…

I saw another article like this about MIT recently. I have a really hard time taking the discussion as a whole seriously, because it kind of feels like bike-shedding as compared to "How are we going to grill some of the people who really, actually deserve it?"

On the list of priorities, reprimanding labs and schools for taking donations seems like it should not be coming first.

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

#35

Post by amluto »

tlb wrote: post #9
HillaryBriss wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think no theory of anonymity works. A villain isn't going to keep their pinky-promise to not tell everyone that your prestigious institution took their money.

It’s not particularly difficult to make a donation anonymous in a way that the recipient genuinely doesn’t know who made the donation. Just have a neutral third party handle it. This could be a donor advised fund or a trustee, for example. I suspect this isn’t particularly rare.

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

#36

Post by raisedbyninjas »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #12

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 tha…

I like this sentiment, but the lab's behavior is antithetical to Lessig's argument. For unsavory benefactors there should be no tours, no VIP badges, no meetings with senior staff, no visits or honor of any kind. An invitation to the campus degrades the university's reputation. His presence in the lab is offensive to decent people.

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

#37

Post by _jal »

Alex3917 wrote: post #32
dirtybird04 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If playing a key role in connecting everyone on earth doesn’t make someone a hero, what does? IMHO that seems like just about the greatest possible human accomplishment.

What? He was a VC who made some investments. He had a role in CC, which is actually above and beyond his job description, sure. But he doesn't hold a candle to Jon Postel or Vint Cerf or even John Perry Barlow.

He's another greedhead who got caught doing what he clearly did not want others to see him doing. He didn't even have the honor to get ahead of things; he tried to hang on until after he made the news.

That's an accomplishment he'll be remembered for.

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

#38

Post by cortesoft »

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…

Isn't that the exact opposite of what the article says? The article is pretty clear that anonymity did not reduce his power at all, precisely for the reason you described.

It did suggest it might work if the recipient was not aware of who the money was from, but makes it clear that was not the case here.

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

#39

Post by olefoo »

Then there is the whole question of whether Epstein was using his money to _direct research_ specifically to junk science like Euugenics.

I think Sarah Taber said it best though.

""" I think the best lens to understand what was going on here isn't just "reputation laundering."

The Media Lab's leadership catered to a superiority fetish in exchange for cash.

That's sex work """

https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117193193908069171...

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

#40

Post by partialrecall »

seph-reed wrote: post #34
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…

I saw another article like this about MIT recently. I have a really hard time taking the discussion as a whole seriously, because it kind of feels like bike-shedding as compared to "How are we going to grill some of the people who really, actually deserve it?" On the list of priorities, reprimanding labs and schools for taking donations seems like it should not be coming first.

The response needn't be serialized. That is to say, multiple actions may be popped off the priority queue at once, without waiting for the others to finish.

See also: the reason we are talking about this at all when there are still hungry children in the world.

Post reply on HN