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

61–70 of 72 posts

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

#61

Post by DonHopkins »

cortesoft wrote: post #38
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.

I was going to say! That's precisely what Lessig's article says, but what this article deftly rebuts.

Maybe the grandparent had both tabs opened and was commenting on Lessig's article, because he's right in relation to that, and we're all in agreement about the point of the Vox article.

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

#62

Post by DonHopkins »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #8

You know what you should not do if you really believe "the money gets put to a better use, and they don’t get to accumulate prestige or connections from the donation because the public wouldn’t know about it." > The financier would meet with faculty members, apparently to allow him to give input on projects… (from the New Yorker article). Also, if you know you are violating the policies of MIT's central fund-raising…

The evidence it was all about greed is that Epstein gave Ito's investment funds $1.6 million, more than TWICE the amount of money than the chump change Epstein gave to Media Lab in exchange for highly discounted reputation and a cast of academic celebrities to parade at his parties.

Epstein bribed Ito with more than 200% commission to make the other cash-for-reputation deal, which they both knew they must covered up at all cost, because Media Lab would pay with its reputation when discovered.

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

#63

Post by malvosenior »

natalyarostova wrote: post #45

Of all the people to take Epstein's money or endorse him with their reputation, of all the slimy people, of all the career politicians, we've decided to mainly just fixate and ruin the life of one well-intentioned nerd who wanted to use the money for research. I hope everyone feels fuzzy and warm with their self-righteousness. Evil is defeated once more -- and you all helped -- with your brave internet shaming and di…

What makes you think he was well-intentioned? He deliberately hid his actions. They sent Epstein a Disobedience Prize orb!

What makes you think he was powerless? He was on the board of the MIT Media Lab, The New York Times, The MacArthur Foundation, The Knight Foundation among other things.

He's exactly the kind of person who should be held accountable for their actions.

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

#64

Post by fmajid »

Cognitive dissonance at work. I really want to take the money, so I will come up with all sorts of rationalizations, and subconsciously I will adopt those beliefs strongly, because the alternative is not being able to face myself in the mirror.

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

#65

Post by fmajid »

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’s someone who was famous for being famous, but then again he fit right in in the Media Lab, and it’s smoke-and-mirrors carnival as opposed to the serious research done at the AI Lab.

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

#66

Post by ineedasername »

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.

I don't think violations should be ignored simply because more egregious ones exist. There's no reason both can't be pursued. For example you don't ignore muggings just because some people are commiting murder. In this case, Joi deliberately violated policy in accepting donations from Epstein. I agree the University shouldn't devote significant resources to policing donations that in all likelihood are legitimate in the vast majority of cases. But when something like this falls in their lap, there's no reason to ignore this just because other bad things happen, say a coach that might be taking million dollar bribes to get a student admitted.

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

#67

Post by DonHopkins »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #10

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” -Upton Sinclair I think most people from the outside could see the problem in accepting donations from Epstein. People at the Media Lab (with some very notable exceptions) allowed their desire for money to get the better of their judgment.

Arwa Michelle Mboya is an early and very notable exception: an example of a person at the Media Lab with good judgement. She called for his resignation on August 23, and wrote the guest column "Why Joi Ito needs to resign" published in The Tech on August 29.

Arwa Michelle Mboya - @RuMboya: The MIT @medialab was nicknamed “The Future Factory” by @60Minutes . We are supposed to reflect the future, not just of technology but of society. I’m fighting for the #FutureOfWomen when I call for Joi Ito’s resignation. 1:38 AM · Aug 23, 2019

https://twitter.com/RuMboya/status/1164683383815004160

OPINION GUEST COLUMN: Why Joi Ito needs to resign. We need to set a standard that ensures a safe future for women where money will never be seen as more valuable than their lives. By Arwa Mboya, Aug. 29, 2019.

https://thetech.com/2019/08/29/joi-ito-needs-to-resign

MIT Media Lab People: Arwa Michelle Mboya. Civic Media.

https://www.media.mit.edu/people/mboya/overview/

How Grad Student Arwa Mboya Helped Bring Down The Epstein Coverup At The MIT Media Lab

https://moguldom.com/225575/how-grad-student-arwa-mboya-help...

Ito’s resignation was necessary for the greater good, Mboya suggested. “This is not an MIT issue, and this is not a Joi Ito issue. This is an international issue where a global network of powerful individuals have used their influence to secure their privilege at the expense of women’s bodies and lives.”

After Ito resigned, Mboyo told The Washongton Post, “I feel vindicated, like I’m not crazy.” Ito is to blame for his actions, but others are to blame for allowing his actions to continue, she wrote in the guest column.

[...]

“We have a bad history of forgiving talented men who wield power,” Mboyo wrote. “If there is no accountability for the people who bolster men like Epstein, sexual violence against powerless people will continue.”

Mboyo is from Kenya. “I’m a young black woman (running the risk of being called ‘angry’ or ‘crazy’ for speaking up),” she wrote. “On the ladder of power, I am on a very low rung. That said, I am educated, I am smart, and I have a voice … I at least have the power to advocate for the girls and women who couldn’t speak out when they were raped and abused. I have the power to say no to a director who chose not only to ignore the accusations but to lie about his involvement as well. I can say that I am part of the #MeTooSTEM movement and will not be silent.”

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

#68

Post by DonHopkins »

nyolfen wrote: post #33
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...

I wonder if Epstein ever sponsored any cryogenics research at MIT?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-...

"Mr. Epstein told this person that he wanted his head and penis to be frozen."

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

#69

Post by natalyarostova »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #60
natalyarostova wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respond to this comment if that happens, and I'll stop defending him and admit everyone was right, and I was totally wrong. I feel like there is only about a 5% chance that's the case, but who knows.

He took money from this guy after going to prison for rape, attended multiple events where underage prostitutes almost certainly were present... where do you get 95% confidence that his intentions were good? Here’s a question: if we had a list of everyone who ever attended one of those parties, would you estimate 95% of them had good intentions?

I think this is some special pleading though, since you could make similar statements about any of the many many high-profile people who commingled with Epstein. Is it all one large conspiracy? Or were they all just chumps?

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

#70

Post by seph-reed »

partialrecall wrote: post #44
seph-reed wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hungry people are a growing and incredibly complex problem. Punishing even a single one of Epstein's clients seems much more manageable. And if we're going for impact-to-effort ratio queuing, this is likely a bit more of a gimme than world hunger.

The point is that society can address more than one problem (or more than one aspect of a problem) at once. The reasoning I responded to seemed to be following the tired cliche of dismissing any problem as not worthy of attention because children are still starving.

> The point is that society can address more than one problem

Can it? It often seems like nothing really ever get addressed fully, while there is a barrage of half baked debates.

Post reply on HN