4 ms·

For what it's worth, > Odd take - almost all of the stories are about people who ended up engaging extensively with him after he'd already been convicted of be

For what it's worth, > Odd take - almost all of the stories are about people who ended up engaging extensively with him after he'd already been convicted of being a sex offender. When I engage with people I often don't do a search on them. Even if I did, I'm usually not fault someone for a past mistake; assuming I think they have changed. That being said, I think the OPs take was that simply funding or working with a research group, doesn't make the research group guilty by association. Perhaps some investigation is warranted, but if you're doing research you're typically not going to turn down funding. How many research groups take funding from the DoD to literally build weapons to kill people? That's likely worse than this association. I don't think that was the MediaLabs purpose, it was an unfortunate relationship.

wastedhours 7y ago
> Perhaps some investigation is warranted, but if you're doing research you're typically not going to turn down funding As the linked post suggests though, building the relationship wasn't without warning in this case (as in, he asked Ito not to take the meeting due to the history involved). An unfortunate relationship, but I don't believe the outrage is unwarranted (or, as implied by the OP, merely virtue signalling).
hyperpape 7y ago
Do you raise money for things? That’s a very different world, and anyone who does it should be aware that they’re engaged in a project of laundering wealth into reputations, and act accordingly. It’s a sad reality, and we’d probably be better off it wasn’t reality, but high-profile academics need to be aware of it.