22 ms·
M.I.T. Media Lab concealed its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein
- idlewords 7y agoJoi Ito needs to be fired (if possible, into the sun).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- joering2 7y agoDevils advocate here - so Epstein was found guilty and convicted, did his time and payed off his due to the society accordingly to the judge verdict and the law of the land - so where is that american spirit of paying off your dues, being forgiven, moving on and be a better person? Becoming asset to whole society again, no? Better to throw him in a cell and wait until he hangs himself, right? Is that an american spirit these days? From the article - he worked with big names like Bill Gates to secure even more founds for MIT research. That should be praised not bashed. MIT did so many incredible discoveries heck I probably would not be able to type this message if I wouldn’t be crossing some of their reasearch and patents in the process. Such a shame how judgmental and unforgiving the whole american society became these days ;(
- garmaine 7y agoI think you mean Joi?
- NotAnEconomist 7y ago> so Epstein was found guilty and convicted, did his time and payed off his due to the society accordingly to the judge verdict and the law of the land - so where is that american spirit of paying off your dues, being forgiven, moving on and be a better person? Epstein used his wealth to broker a sweetheart deal which violated the law, by failing to notify victims. He was facing renewed inquiry into that injustice -- which involves a member of the current administration -- when he hung himself. That's where mercy is: withheld for someone who used wealth to escape justice. > Such a shame how judgmental and unforgiving the whole american society became these days ;( Forgiving corruption without a reckoning is condoning injustice -- and Epstein never faced a proper reckoning.
- kuzimoto 7y agoThe guy preyed on tons of children. There is not enough time nor money to make up for that, no matter how good of a cause it goes to.
- joering2 7y agoI see. So because he was a horrible person and happened to be a billionaire, he should have rather spent his fortune buying and crashing a new Ferrari every day, got it. This country was mostly built by Rockefellers and similar despicable humans. Honestly they didn’t fell far from what Epstein was doing but yet here it is America the strongest nation on Earth.
- pcwalton 7y agoNo, Epstein should have been in prison for what at his age would amount to a life sentence, and his fortune should have gone to victim restitution. That's what typically happens in cases of this magnitude when the justice system functions properly.
- joering2 7y agoI see. And you are a US-based judge with experience trying cases for 30 years to make this determination even though he was tried and sentenced by a judge in US court already you know better. Cool. Just tell me with cricuit court you try cases, your honor?
- kuzimoto 7y agoI don't care what he spent his money on. His crimes were so severe there is no way for him to repay his debt. I'm not sure any founders of America come close to his systematic, deliberate exploitation of minors.
- Ar-Curunir 7y agoNow imagine how much more productively that money could have been used if it stayed in the hands of the people who did all the work (i.e. Rockefeller's employees). We need to abandon this lone genius/strong man view of history.
- zwily 7y agoWhy were they trying so hard to hide his involvement if they thought he had paid his debt to society and everything was all good? Clearly they knew this dude was toxic but still wanted his money.
- joering2 7y agoI already answered that. Because in general - society doesn’t forgive. It would have been scandal had this info be published from day one. But he never made a dollar illegally. Its not like a drug dealer sponsoring a Boys Scout club.
- hudibras 7y ago>But he never made a dollar illegally. Blackmail is illegal, by the way.
- jessaustin 7y agoBut he never made a dollar illegally. At this point it's pretty clear that he made most of his money through blackmail of underage sex acts arranged by him. He pretended to be some kind of hedge fund genius, but really most of the money that his targets gave him to keep the pictures out of the press just went into index funds etc. IANAL, but that doesn't seem legal to me...
- x3sphere 7y agoAlso in the 90s he almost got convicted for being part of a massive ponzi scheme. His partner ended up taking the fall though, and Epstein remained unscathed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-worked-at-towers-financial-with-stephen-hoffenberg-who-committed-ponzi-scheme-crimes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-worked-at-tower... His entire past is super shady.
- joering2 7y agoSo he nade billions of off blackmail? Never knew that - any proof?
- updownquark 7y agoI would ordinarily agree, but the Epstein case is exceptional for two reasons. First - "paying his due" in this case meant a plea deal widely considered to be very lenient. On top of that, the plea deal not only resulted in no useful testimony from Epstein against other criminals, it had an extraordinary provision granting immunity to his co-conspirators! The accusation that the deal was made in bad faith specifically so the government could protect Epstein's conspirators (many of whom were rumored to be prominent politicians, including foreign leaders of US allies) was plausible enough that the US Secretary of Labor actually resigned in July over his involvement in making the deal. Second - while this dips into conspiratorial territory, there is widespread confusion as to where exactly Epstein's money came from and whether it had anything to do with the sex trafficking. None of the typical players who would be familiar with the deals made by a New York hedge fund had ever worked with him, and he didn't appear to have either a real staff or any real record of investments that such a fund would make. There is a very plausible theory that the money in Epstein's fund came from Epstein getting other billionaires to participate in his sexual abuse ring and then blackmailing them. Needless to say, this makes the idea of taking his money even more problematic. Much of of this wouldn't have been known to Ito years ago when he first took the money, but it's all out in the open now, and the way the Media Lab has been handling it doesn't reflect well on them.
- tomhoward 7y agoI don't think there's ever been an understanding that once you walk free from prison your reputation and legacy is wiped clean. If that were the case it would be socially acceptable to commit a crime, serve a sentence to "pay your debt", then walk right out and do the same thing again. Clearly this isn't the case. Completing your sentence means you have a chance to start atoning for the harm you've caused and rebuilding your reputation gradually over time. If Epstein had devoted his time and funds to, say, helping his victims recover and campaigning to discourage/prevent others from committing similar crimes, perhaps some forgiveness may be forthcoming, but I don't know of any evidence that he did anything like that.
- sodosopa 7y agoand Negroponte and Lessig
- idlewords 7y agoAnd Schneier and Zittrain and a whole host of other enablers.
- hudibras 7y agoIto will be gone within 24 hours, I guarantee it. And I wouldn't be surprised if the entire Media Lab is shut down by the end of the week.
- hudibras 7y agoI called it.
- condercet 7y agoCertainly, as a future applicant to grad school, these revelations make me dramatically less likely to consider the Media Lab.
- turk73 7y agoWhy would this dissuade you when MIT has been in bed with the MIC for decades and helps them build all their mass surveillance tech and people eradication tech? So you're turned off by one intel agency pedo whose job was to blackmail as many important people as possible while also wheedling his way into all kinds of tech research teams in order to make big money for himself by knowing what the latest breakthroughs would be? What you don't accept about Epstein is that he represents the norm of the elite, not some outlier bad actor.
- awat 7y agoI’d have to agree to put it lightly it certainly influences my view on MIT. I won’t go as far as assuming people knew but I’d have to imagine anonymous donations with this many 0s where asked about outside of the media lab.
- stallmanite 7y agoTheir treatment of this guy is what made me lose respect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
- enriquto 7y agothis is arguably much, much worse than the Epstein donation stuff. Accepting these donations is morally shady. Their treatment of Swartz is downright evil.
- azinman2 7y agoIt wasn’t all that many 0s for the media lab.
- sharcerer 7y ago
- miguelrochefort 7y agoThe same thing is happening with the Transhumanist Party: "If any member of the US Transhumanist Party says there is a connection between Epstein and transhumanism, they will be expelled from the party." https://www.reddit.com/r/Transhuman/comments/d0jprh/if_any_member_of_the_us_transhumanist_party_says/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Transhuman/comments/d0jprh/if_any_m...
- _iyig 7y agoIt’s certainly a notable allegation that “Epstein was paying the 100k salary of Ben Goertzel, the Vice Chairman of Humanity Plus.” This would be in line with Epstein’s reported interest in Transhumanism [0]. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-transhumanist-what-that-means-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-transhumanis...
- verall 7y agoWow that comment thread really puts either reddit or transhumanism (or both) in a terrible light.
- defen 7y agoEpstein also donated 50k to another staple of the “rationalist” community, MIRI (Machine Intelligence Research Institute, then known as Singularity Institute of Artificial Intelligence) in 2009, after his conviction https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6346750-COUQ-2009-990.html#document/p18/a520891 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6346750-COUQ-2009-99...
- api 7y agoWhen the money is flowing, people look the other way. It's how someone like Epstein (or Jimmy Saville in the UK for another example) can function for so long. They throw money around. A similar money induced blindness drives financial bubbles, Ponzi schemes, and dodgy corporate accounting. It's hard for people to see that something's wrong when they're being paid to be blind.
- harry8 7y agoCharles Windsor's friend Jimmy Saville and Andrew Windsor's friend Epstein. Not just money induced this blindness. Snobbery is real.
- Jun8 7y agoNegroponte also defends taking the money in a meeting at MIT on Wednesday (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614264/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joi-ito-nicholas-negroponte-funding-sex-abuse/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614264/mit-media-lab-jeff...): "Throughout, the meeting had proceeded calmly. But as one of the organizers began to wrap things up, Negroponte stood up, unprompted, and began to speak. He discussed his privilege as a “rich white man” and how he had used that privilege to break into the social circles of billionaires. It was these connections, he said, that had allowed the Media Lab to be the only place at MIT that could afford to charge no tuition, pay people full salaries, and allow researchers to keep their intellectual property. "
- heymijo 7y agoWhich he then backpedaled on after this blew up on social media. The authors of the article went back to him for clarification and he walked it back. The people in attendance for his original remarks called BS on him walking it back.
- sp332 7y agoThe clarification was just about whether he would recommend taking the money again knowing what he knows now vs knowing what he knew then. It's less inflammatory but still divisive.
- bigj0n 7y ago> He discussed his privilege as a "rich white man" I know you're just quoting the article, but it feels sort of slanderous to include this detail without the proper context.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoThe Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
- specialist 7y ago
- wickrom 7y agoLooks like Joi Ito saw this coming and pre-emptively put up that post where he claimed he didn't know of Epstein's wrongdoings while happily accepting his money. Well..cat's out of the bag now.
- curiousgal 7y ago> cat's out of the bag Perhaps I am too naive but what is wrong with accepting a donation from a person you didn't know was a criminal?
- i_am_nomad 7y agoNothing. But that is certainly, provably not the situation here.
- ethank 7y agoHe didn't do a basic Google search to find all the articles about his conviction for child molestation and solicitation?
- cjbprime 7y agoIt sounds like you haven't read the article, which is about covering up donations from someone you knew was a disqualified donor because he was a pedophile, because your own staff kept telling you he was and that you should stop talking to him.
- azernik 7y agoAnd also apparently personally profited from it.
- rst 7y agoNot quite. The big news here is that Ito's denials were apparently false -- that Ito was fully aware of what kind of stigma would be associated with Epstein's money, and why, and dealt with it by concealing the source and taking the money. As documented by the email trails that someone gave the reporter.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- BurningFrog 7y ago> “with hindsight, we recognize with shame and distress that we allowed MIT to contribute to the elevation of his reputation, which in turn served to distract from his horrifying acts This confuses me. If Epstein's involvement was kept secret, how did it elevate his reputation? It sounds like he spent a lot of money and got nothing in return. What am I missing?
- hudibras 7y agoEpstein, a convicted and admitted pedophile, got MIT Media Lab kowtowing to him.
- gojomo 7y agoHow did MIT Media Lab "kowtow" to Epstein? Did they offer him special donor benefits, like naming something after him or listing him as an honored donor? Did they adjust their research priorities to match Epstein's preferences?
- eesmith 7y agoThe New Yorker piece mentions, among other things, that yes, they let Epstein adjust research priorities: > the Media Lab ... consulted him about the use of the funds As an example of Epstein deciding which research should continue: > In September, 2014, Ito wrote to Epstein soliciting a cash infusion to fund a certain researcher, asking, “Could you re-up/top-off with another $100K so we can extend his contract another year?” Epstein replied, “yes.” The Media Lab also kowtowed by allowing him to make contributions even though "Epstein was listed in the university’s central donor database as disqualified".
- gojomo 7y agoI don't see either of those excerpts as establishing any actual Epstein-driven changes in MIT Media Lab research priorities. The specific example of "soliciting a cash infusion to fund a certain researcher" suggests the exact opposite: Epstein gave to whatever the Lab requested. (If anyone's "kowtowing" to anyone else that anecdote, it's Epstein howtowing to Ito.)
- heymijo 7y agoPair this New Yorker article with Anand Ghiridaradas' thread from today about his experience with the Media Lab. [0] Ghiridaradas is author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World [1]. He was also on the panel for MIT Media Labs' Disobedience Award. It was their answer to the MacArthur Foundations' "Genius Grants". Reid Hoffman, of LinkedIn, Greylock, and Blitzscaling fame is the donor who sponsors the Disobedience Award. He comes out looking...not good. [0] https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1169947031806365696?s=20 https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1169947031806365696?s... [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37506348-winners-take-all https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37506348-winners-take-al...
- dondawest 7y agoWow, Ghiridaradas coming so correct. I tried to read his book “Winners Take All” multiple times and found it absolutely unreadable, he kept restating the same point with different overly-complex words and name-drops. But here he writes with real clarity and real precision. Just wish he’d applied that same clarity to the writing style in his book!
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- DoctorOetker 7y agoAnand is not seeing the bigger picture: it's about hush money and the cloak of charity, not prestige-for-cash which does not make sense if you think about it. I had a long comment explaining my interpretation backed by quotes, but it's too long for HN apparently so here is the link, at a text storage site (I couldn't get past pastebin's "SPAM filter" captcha) https://textuploader.com/192lt https://textuploader.com/192lt EDIT: I am not on twitter, so if anyone could mention this to Anand I would appreciate.
- amsilprotag 7y agoFrom your text: Then Anand shares the thoughtful and profound email he sent to Ito & Co and others at MIT Media Lab, from which it is crystal clear Anand is unambiguously trying to do the right thing. You're giving Giridharadas way too much credit. His e-mail resignation is an implicit ultimatum (if you don't fire him, I will go public), to which Hoffman counters by saying how he will try to frame Giridharadas as trying to personally gain from this scandal (which, clearly he will). By publicly stating Hoffman's weak threat, while reserving the future threat of revealing their correspondence, Giridharadas makes it harder for Hoffman to follow through on the threat without public backlash. So Giridharadas targets this tweetstorm to inflict maximum damage to Ito supporters and MIT admins. The hush money line is harder to prove and channels frustration towards the hushers more than the facilitators. The cash for prestige line places all the blame on Epstein and Ito. Then he publicly shares the list of Ito supporters [0] and creates public knowledge of their thinning numbers. When the firing eventually occurs, Giridharadas will have collected the spoils of a successful cancellation, the public knowledge that he can make very credible threats. If you are correct, we should expect Giridharadas to place more emphasis on the hushers for the sake of justice. If I am, we should expect him to put all effort into bringing down Ito. [0] https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1170025167063605250 https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1170025167063605250
- tempsy 7y agoBill Gates really needs to say more than just refusing to answer questions about his involvement here. I don't understand how that quells any rumors if it's to be believed his relationship with Epstein is being exaggerated as he is claiming through a spokesperson.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- simplicio 7y agoThe Gates angle is weird. Surely MIT has people in his orbit to go ask for donations without having to rely on a convicted sex-offender that they're too embarrassed to even take money from directly.
- pm90 7y agoI think it makes more sense if you look at the specific institution within MIT (the media lab) which has this particular problem. So while MIT itself may have ample funding from non shady sources, Perhaps this institution doesn’t. Or perhaps it does and the people working there just want to prove their worth by securing funding (which is what most university administrators are incentivized to do).
- orbifold 7y agoYeah I mean most of the research at MIT is funded by the military and department of energy. Those guys are not shady at all.
- rocha 7y ago[citation needed]
- tibbon 7y agoI don’t have a citation, but MIT and the defense/energy industry are definitely intertwined and everyone on campus knows it. Most universities don’t have something like Lincoln Labs, which is literally a DoD research center: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Lincoln_Laboratory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Lincoln_Laboratory
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- snappy173 7y agoNegroponte's brother was Bush II's DNI, and there is a ton of speculation about Epstein's involvement in foreign intelligence ...
- DonHopkins 7y agoOh his track record cuts longer and deeper than that. Look up what he did in South America. There's a whole lot of blood on John Negroponte's hands. Nicholas must take solace in the fact that he isn't directly responsible for as many deaths and as much corruption as his brother John, for what it's worth. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/s091401.html https://fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/s091401.html >Based upon the Committee's review of State Department and CIA documents, it would seem that Ambassador Negroponte knew far more about government perpetrated human rights abuses than he chose to share with the committee in 1989 or in Embassy contributions at the time to annual State Department Human Rights reports.
- karlp 7y agoNegroponte was DNI when Epstein was on trial, it makes no sense.
- dls2016 7y agoWhat trial? You mean when Acosta cut a deal because Epstein “belonged to intelligence”?
- pimlottc 7y agoDNI = Director of National Intelligence (I had to look it up)
- iamjackdaniels 7y agoEpstein was a monster but it doesn’t prove people around him knew beyond the widespread normal disregard for young women being exploited. For example, there’s no evidence President Clinton ever visited Epstein’s island. A billionaire who owns a private island in the Bahamas once grabbed a girl in front of me and then propositioned us. We were shocked and left to find a room to hide out in. On the way, I took a photo of a photo of the billionaire with a former President (and his wife) on his island. This former President was a former intelligence chief so it's hard to understand how he didn’t know the existence and horrific rumors about his friend. Somehow this guy has avoided the #metoo movement. I knew him for 5-seconds and almost punched him. And soon after I heard lots of wild stories about him. This guy is a South Florida billionaire like many other rich creepy guys who exploit young girls. No one does anything about it — I know federal prosecutors who have turned a blind eye to it.
- metacontent 7y agoNo it doesn't "prove" it. But if you look at his crimes, they are believed to include high target underage sex trafficking. Luring the rich and famous into compromising positions for the purposes of blackmail, or just simply supplying the rich and famous with the kind of degenerate and illegal things they desired. So.. if you're a rich and famous or well connected person, and you are shown to have a relationship with a person like that, the only thing it can possibly lead to is a deeply disturbing insinuation. Epstein was a monster, and he was supplying a huge network of monsters, we need to find out who they are and deal with them.
- abstract7 7y agoYou're saying George Bush Sr. is a sexual predator? Regardless of what you think of him, there's no indication of any credible rape allegations, such as a civil settlement. The media would be interested in those if you have knowledge. That said, he may very well be a 'grabber' based on media reports. On the other hand, Bill Clinton settled numerous rape allegations. Bill Clinton logged 27 flights on Epstein's private jet known as the Lolita Express. Among Bill Clintons spelled out name, there are many initials and non-full names in the flight log of the Lolita Express, which are potentially the underage girls known to fly on that plane. It's against the law to not record passenger names. Initials are a no-no. He also more than once left his Secret Service detail on trips with Epstein.
- wopwops 7y agoWhere, specifically, was the money going at MIT?
- heymijo 7y agoThe Media Lab that Joi Ito is in charge of. Ethan Zuckerman is another name people might know around here who was at the Media Lab. He resigned. Zuckerman by all accounts was totally clean in all of this. Ito, looks dirtier by the day, and is digging in.
- o10449366 7y agoWhere did this go on the front page? It was holding the #2 position and 30 seconds later it's #32. Is it because people are spam flagging the story? I don't understand how the gravity of this story can increase so quickly. The lack of transparency around things like this is my least favorite part of HN.
- spraak 7y ago> The lack of transparency around things like this is my least favorite part of HN. Yeah, it's very frustrating. I wouldn't feel such resistance to the mods actions if it were known what exactly those actions were. HN is a curated space but not explicitly so.
- olalonde 7y agoFWIW, I am one of the flaggers. I don't find this story intellectually stimulating.
- sumedh 7y agoTopics like these are not intellectually stimulating but they still need to be read.
- olalonde 7y agoI don't disagree with that and I do visit other sites that cover those news.
- DonHopkins 7y agoIt needs to be both read and discussed. Just covering the news is completely different than actually discussing the news with this particular community of people.
- shademaan 7y agoJesus. I do have to wonder why exactly Harvard is not getting lashed by the press too? They were even more entangled with Epstein from the sounds of it.
- diydsp 7y agoSociety preys on those who show weakness. Harvard asserted immediately they would give no money back, while Joi apologized. Negroponte, a more old-school elite, stepped in to play the same move as Harvard but it was too late.
- pimmen 7y agoCovering something up is always more scandalous than the scandal itself, because that completely nullifies the defense that it was done naively.
- bmistree 7y agoThe ethical challenge this New Yorker article presents is that: - Members of the Media Lab knew at least some of Mr. Epstein's transgressions (to the point that some of them were concerned he may have brought trafficked women into the lab) - Subsequently solicited funds from him, despite knowledge of these transgressions - Actively concealed the source of these funds Additionally, it seems that members may have intentionally broken MIT administrative policy that disqualified Mr. Epstein as a donor. I googled around a bit, and maybe didn't find the entanglements that you're referring to. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I could only find that Harvard accepted money before knowledge of Mr. Epstein's attacks could be expected to be publicly known [1]. Articles also mention personal relationships that Mr. Epstein had with individuals at Harvard. However, those don't seem to have involved Harvard the institution directly. Again, I could have missed something, but these seem to be different situations. And it makes sense that the Media Lab would attract more attention in this case than Harvard. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/11/harvard-has-no-plans-return-jeffrey-epsteins-6-5-m-gift/1702047001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/11/harvar...
- darawk 7y agoIt's interesting to me that people who are likely very uncomfortable with felony disenfranchisement seem so supremely comfortable with socially exiling someone for having committed a nonviolent crime in his past. I'm sure someone will respond by saying that he was continuing to commit those crimes, and that appears to be true. But that wasn't necessarily known to anyone else at the time.
- zapita 7y agoRape is a violent crime.
- darawk 7y agoHe was not convicted of rape. At least, not the violent kind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Conviction_and_sentencing_(2008%E2%80%932011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Conviction_and...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hbosch 7y agoWhat someone is convicted of, and what someone is guilty of, are often different things.
- darawk 7y agoTotally agree. But what he was convicted of is what people publicly knew at the time.
- jasonwatkinspdx 7y agoYou need to actually review the facts of the case. The reason this blew open again is entirely because the settlement acosta offered was judged illegal. They concealed the deal from the victims' legal staff. You, pointing to this corrupt deal as evidence of exoneration, makes very clear what your goals here are. Revolting.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago>Gates has previously denied receiving financial advisory services from Epstein; in August, CNBC reported that he met with Epstein in New York in 2013, to discuss “ways to increase philanthropic spending.” ah, so where are these "rational altruism" people now? the problem is not so much a lack of "rational altruism" but rather "provable altruism"
- qazpot 7y agoI don't think this current trend demonizing everybody who ever associated with Epstein is good. All it is achieving showing everyone that do not associate with felons. Don't hire felons. Don't even shake hands with them in a social gathering.
- VMG 7y agoThat lesson is absolutely appropriate for many instances. Especially if the individual did not receive appropriate punishment for their crime in the justice system and shows no remorse. Forgiveness is appropriate if the offender has learned a lesson and changed their ways.
- DanBC 7y agoNot all felons and not all contact are equal. I think it's reasonable to suggest that you should avoid taking money from felons who used that money to rape children.
- joshypants 7y agoPlease don't act like taking money from pedophile sex trafficker billionaires to fund your institution and parlaying that access to secure their investment in your personal projects is equivalent to whatever you're talking about!
- metacontent 7y agoI think you miss spelled "pedophile" and "underage sex trafficker".
- hos234 7y agoIt's hard to say whether its good or bad right now. Give it a few years. Social norms are changing very quickly these days in ways no one expected. Look at the polls on acceptance of gay marriage prior to 2000 and today. There is a big shift, not just in the US. Hard to believe such shifts can happen in such time scales, if you read old sociology text books. What is different today is how connected society is and how fast social pressure can build up. And thats having effects people haven't seen before - good and bad.
- joshypants 7y agoI hope everyone is thinking twice about what it means to be an Èlite institution.
- akhilcacharya 7y agoAs an outsider looking in it’s becoming clear these elite circles are rotten to the core. My alma mater never solicited funds from someone like Epstein. I don’t know what can be done but we should begin to reevaluate their undue influence on society.
- joshypants 7y agoAnd previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20761153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20761153 I hope everyone in that thread who was all "Oh but surely Ito wasn't aware of Epstein's crimes at the time!" is sufficiently embarrassed enough to do some introspection. Why is it your first instinct to defend those with power, even when they're so obviously corrupt?
- paggle 7y agoI wouldn't criticize them so roundly. 1) People want to be slow to accuse 2) People want to believe that most people are good -- that Epstein is a huge outlier and not that he had lots of willing accomplices, co-conspirators, and legitimizers, and 3) People want to believe that MIT, which is held in very high regard in most places, does not harbor such filth.
- watwut 7y agoI think that being slow to accuse is a good thing. But it also should not involve making unverified assumptions that those who complain don't know what they talk about and are surely out of their minds.
- keiru 7y agoIt's a good learning opportunity then, and it should be pointed out
- paulcole 7y agoCompare this to any article posted here on Theranos (even years before the truth started to come out). Quick to accuse, believed Holmes was evil from the start, etc. Hmmm, wonder what the difference is?
- mchanson 7y agoThe same unconscious (and conscious in some folks) misogyny that caused that also causes folks to down vote you.
- PeterStuer 7y agoHaving consulted for the financial sector I know they screen for reputation damage using services such as [1]. Do institutes such as M.I.T. have a donation due-diligence process incorporating similar data-sourcing/services for vetting donations or do they just wing it? [1] http://solutions.refinitiv.com/world-check-kyc-screening http://solutions.refinitiv.com/world-check-kyc-screening
- CrazyStat 7y agoAccording to the Twitter thread, MIT had Epstein flagged so they wouldn't take any money from him. Ito and his team got around this by marking all Epstein's donations as anonymous and carefully hiding him from the University. I don't have a dog in this race but it seems to me that Ito has to go. Poor judgement in accepting donations from Epstein is one thing, but hiding it from the University and lying about it cannot be acceptable.
- PeterStuer 7y agoInteresting and thanks for the clarification. Now if the donations were so successfully anonymized as to fool the MIT administration, wouldn't that also neutralize Epstein's reputation gains from the donations? (I'm not trying to excuse the people involved, just trying to understand the dynamics more)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- RichardHeart 7y agoWhich is better? 1. Evil people keep all their money. 2. Evil people anonymously donate to good causes.
- CalChris 7y agoEpstein wasn't donating anonymously. Ito was marking Epstein's donations as anonymous. These are not the same.
- samirillian 7y agoI don't know what I find more disturbing: the eloquence of desire or the accent on top of "elite."
- leftyted 7y agoIt strikes me as inappropriate to suggest that "Anyone seriously tainted by Epstein should step down". What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? If "seriously tainted" means "directly linked to Epstein's criminal activities," I'd be amenable to the suggestion. But I find it concerning that the writer feels no need to be specific (though he includes vague accusations that Ito visited Epstein's private residence). Frankly, the whole thing seems like a power play to me. Maybe I'm being cynical, but it seems to me that Ghiridaradas is exploiting the situation to raise his profile. Epstein had social relationships with many people who likely visited his private residences. We can't throw them all out because most of them are innocent. The failure point with Epstein was the justice system. What happened? Why was he allowed to walk? I want answers, but I'm skeptical of a witch hunt aimed at anyone who knew him.
- jlebar 7y ago> What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? Did you read TFA? I think it's quite clear what "tainted" and "seriously" mean.
- johnmaguire2013 7y agoYou're being downvoted because your comment breaks this guideline: > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Can you share what these words mean to you, or your impression of what they meant to the author?
- jlebar 7y agoThe article discusses at length a systemic cover-up of Epstein's involvement with the Media Lab. Multiple high-level people knew about it, knew that MIT had deemed that donations from him were not welcome, and tried to keep his involvement hidden. In other words, they knew they were doing something wrong, and they did it anyway. From this, it is clear that some people were "seriously tainted" by Epstein's involvement. Is there a question of where to draw the line? Sure. We don't have have all of the information, so clearly we can't draw a line. But when OP says It strikes me as inappropriate to suggest that "Anyone seriously tainted by Epstein should step down". What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. That's an insult to his many, many victims and provides cover for his enablers. Honestly it's an affront to women everywhere.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ykevinator 7y agoDirty money is not bad. Not that MIT is a charity, I wish he had put the money to better use, but it's fine. This is a non story and just part of our woke outrage contest.
- whymauri 7y agoThe Director of a huge research institution lying to their parent university (and to the lab they direct) about their direct involvement with a child sexual predator is not a non-story.
- brown9-2 7y agoThis is a really naive analysis of the story. Dirty money is bad because you are letting the donor redeem his public image via your institution.
- williesleg 7y agoUh oh, more suicides happening soon.
- iambateman 7y agoThis certainly looks bad for Ito, who apparently went to great lengths to conceal the relationship with a known abuser. We should expect better. But I think we should take care not to transfer blame to everyone who ever ate dinner with Epstein, went to his house, or took his phone call. Especially someone like Bill Gates, who deserves the benefit of the doubt in my opinion. Once, I was on a frisbee team with a man who is now serving 4 consecutive lifetime sentences for child abuse. The great quandary of abusers is their ability to seem upstanding and normal. Epstein fooled a lot of people and it doesn’t mean they were complicit in or suspicious of his sins.
- eugeniub 7y agoYou are comparing your experience with someone who you had no idea was an abuser until later, to someone who had an extensive relationship with a serial child rapist after this became very publicly known, and after he spent time in jail for it.[1] The details of the sex ring, the Lolita Express, the witness intimidation, even the shape of Epstein’s thing were extremely well known publicly in 2010, but Bill Gates didn’t care. [1]: https://twitter.com/jordanuhl/status/1170170356965007362?s=21 https://twitter.com/jordanuhl/status/1170170356965007362?s=2...
- CalChris 7y agoTo be fair to Gates, he flatly denies having been directed by Epstein. From the article: A spokesperson for Gates said that “any claim that Epstein directed any programmatic or personal grantmaking for Bill Gates is completely false.” A source close to Gates said that the entrepreneur has a long-standing relationship with the lab, and that anonymous donations from him or his foundation are not atypical. Gates has previously denied receiving financial advisory services from Epstein; in August, CNBC reported that he he met with Epstein in New York in 2013, to discuss “ways to increase philanthropic spending.”
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 7y ago
- michalu 7y agoThis is getting ridiculous. Everyone has multiple facets to their personality and some private one. You may be dealing with a nice person or a business partner but don't know what they do in private. Epstein got medialized and media are having an ad money feast on this. Up until this point (or rather 2005) he was a physics teacher and a reputable financier. 2005 he served a sentence. The premise of how justice in society is that you pay your debt. How could anyone who dealt with him be accused unless they took part in the sex offences? Also, let's not forget presumption of innocence (until convicted) which is key concept our justice is built on and a fundamental human right. Media absolutely disregard it on every monetizable occasion. All you need is an accusation and you're already painted as guilty. When that's cleared nobody cares. Someone should hold them accountable. Of course, I don't defend Epstien's acts, if they are proven which seems very likely, everyone involved in the actual crime must be held accountable. But 1. leave the others alone, 2. who's will hold media accountable for every case they treat a suspect as an actual convict and create social consequences for her before a lawful trial took place?
- wkearney99 7y agoThis naively ignores how the 'financier' connived to burnish that 'reputation'. This all goes way back to sucking up to the head of Victoria's Secret. There's a much longer train of abuse than just what came to light in 2005.
- qwerty456127 7y agoI feel genuine scientific curiosity about what makes people like Mr. Epstein and his friends so interested in sex (with inappropriate subjects in particular) that they would risk reputation, fortunes and life for it. Indeed sex is pleasurable but definitely not worth risking anything or making the partner unhappy. Is there some sort of neurochemical pathology or what's actually so wrong with them anyway? BTW if one insists on receiving a forbidden pleasure, some controlled substances can offer mind-blowing sensations, by orders of magnitude more pleasurable than sex can offer and the society is hardly going to be so angry of a drug addict as it usually is about sex offenders.
- alexnewman 7y agoI think the fact that many don't real that this was an elaborate blackmail operation often clouds people's ability to understand what happened. The fact that abused his resources just shows he was exactly the only type of person who can run such blackmail operation.
- TillE 7y agoThat's a piece of it, but if it were just blackmail Epstein wouldn't have a fraction of the connections he actually did. The whole thing makes more sense if you assume Epstein wasn't truly in charge of anything. He was the manager, not the owner. It's a pretty safe bet that few if any of the blackmail tapes will ever surface, partly because of this.
- qwerty456127 7y agoWhat did he actually manage then? Taking the risks associated with joining such an operation just to fuck teen girls or anybody smells bullshit.
- AndrewBissell 7y agoHe was handed hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth (probably either blackmailed or proceeds from money laundering or both) and decades of legal impunity to indulge his predatory urges. Up until the end he probably thought he was untouchable, or he wouldn't have flown back from Paris to be arrested at Teterboro airport in the first place. It's not hard to understand why he took this "bargain." I'm sure the intelligence agencies who helped set it up even put some twisted "it's your patriotic duty" spin on it.
- brown9-2 7y agoAn aspect of this that seems under-reported is that the head of an academic institution, where one of the main job responsibilities is fundraising, was also soliciting investments in his personal investment funds from the same donors. How is that not a giant conflict of interest?
- patientplatypus 7y agoSo... M.I.T. Media Lab, part of a college with young people, accepted money from a known sexual predator with vast wealth and power. Anyone who concealed this should be put in prison. EDIT: I should clarify as I don't think it's necessarily clear why I think so from my post. Say Epstein donates $50M or some other large figure regularly every n-years. Now suppose that one of the people at the school accuses him of rape. So...now he doesn't have to threaten anything, after all not giving money isn't the same thing as a bribe right? So that girl will be silenced by the school, which will threaten to expel her or worse. Accepting money from a known pedophile WHEN YOU WORK AT A SCHOOL WITH MINORS is tantamount to condoning sexual violence and anyone who does so is a rabid animal and should be put in prison forever and a day. EDIT EDIT: So...I can't find statistics on the number of students, but I know that MIT has a reputation for sometimes having prodigies who are under 18 attend campus. Maybe Epstein picked MIT specifically because of that (as heart wrenching as that is) - every one of those kids probably needs to be checked that they didn't get taken advantage of during the time period when this occurred.
- wkearney99 7y agoLet's be real here folks, this is about guys egos (and likely more) being stroked and the subsequent social dynamic of how a predator 'works' them. Someone flys you to an island with girls hanging around the pool. Now what? Are you noble enough to be asking how they got there? Or are you going to give in and go along with the experience? And afterward, then what?
- ryacko 7y agoWhat kind of small talk doesn’t involve asking basic questions like recent life experiences? It seems impossible for anyone to not notice any wrongdoing, these are people, not stolen artworks.
- anonu 7y agoThe salient points for me are mentioned at the bottom of the article: espouse good values and ethics and stay true to them. Money can blind you to that sometimes. Don't let it
- save_ferris 7y agoIt’s really hard to argue that MIT didn’t have a guilty conscience about being close to this guy. Their choice of his internal nickname, “Voldemort” was amazingly Freudian. That is, unless I misunderstood 7 books and Voldemort was actually a good guy...
- DonHopkins 7y ago"Dance for me, Corporate America! I'm SHIT-HOT!" -Hunter S. Negroponte (Via Philip "Tenth Rule" Greenspun [1], originally published in March '95 Voo Doo Magazine [2], The MIT Journal of Humour since 1919 [3]) Generation of Bits Tales of shame and degradation in the Big Idea Lab by Hunter S. Negroponte Too Many Bits The other day I was thanking my good friend Former President Bush (or "George" as I call him) for pulling some strings to get my brother out of that Iran-Contra mess, and he asked me if I knew any hot technologies he could sink his Presidential Pension into. In my opinion, the smart money is on filters. It's getting so you can't read Usenet without seeing that "Dave Jordan" Ponzi letter followed by forty replies from dickless wannabes threatening to mail-bomb the poster's sysadmin for the "innapropriate post." Of course, I personally have my staff of Elegant British Women pre-edit my .newsrc for me (God how I envy the British), but that option is not open to the unwired masses outside the Media Lab. One way to eliminate the blather while keeping the First Amendment intact is to create active "Filter Agents," as I like to call them, that presort my Netnews articles and eliminate the tiresome pseudo-commercial posts. Can you imagine what the net's raw content will look like when all the half-literate morons in the U.S. can publish any text that their tiny minds ooze? The very thought makes me want to refill my glass with the '56 Chateau Lafite. America's Intelligentsia will need some serious Digital Butlers guarding our Offramp on the Digital Highway's Mailing Lists (damn metaphors) when this comes to pass. The Big Lie Media Lab critics (there have been a few) have occasionally questioned the practical application of our work. Well, have you heard about the Holographic Television? No longer a device found only in the back of comic books, we've actually made this sucker work. An honest-to-god motion-picture hologram, produced in the Media Lab basement on a 2000 pound holography table by computers, lasers and mirrors spinning at 30,000 RPM. It's real! It works! Life Magazine even came in to photograph it in action (of course, they had to fill the room with smoke so the lasers would show up on film). Practical application? Sure, it requires a 2000 pound air-suspended rock table and a Connection Machine II to run, but hell, everyone knows the price of computing power and 2000 pound rock tables is cut in half every year. My point, however, is more mundane: we have created a demo literally from smoke and mirrors, and the Corporate World bought it. Even my good friend Penn (or "Penn," as I call him) Jillette would be proud. In fact, I'm a few points up on Penn. You may have heard of the Interactive Narrative work that is proceeding in the lab. Folks, I'll be honest with you for a moment. I know as well as you do that it's a stinking load of horseshit. Roger Ebert said "Six thousand years ago sitting around a campfire a storyteller could have stopped at any time and asked his audience how they wanted the story to come out. But he didn't because that would have ruined the story." You think Hollywood would have learned this lesson from the monster "success" that Clue, the Movie enjoyed several years ago. But no! I've repackaged the "Choose your own Adventure" novels of childhood as Digital Information SuperHighway Yadda Yadda crap, and again, they bought it! Sony right this minute is building an interactive movie theater, with buttons the audience can push to amuse themselves as the story progresses. Dance for me, Corporate America! I'm SHIT-HOT! Why, just the other day I listened to a member of my staff explain to potential sponsors that we had spent \$US 4,000,000 of Japanese sponsor dollars to construct a widescreen version of "I Love Lucy" from the original source. And HE SAID IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE! CAN YOU FUCKING BELIEVE THAT? Boy, I bet those Nips wish they had their money back now! Earthquake? No, we can't do much to rebuild your city, but we SURE AS HELL can give you a 1.66:1 cut of Lucy to fit all those busted HDTVs of yours! HA HA HA! A Sucker Born Last week I was off the coast of Greece on my yacht "Nippo-bux" (I put the "raft" in "graft," as I always say) with my close personal friend Al ("Al") Gore. He asked me "Nick--er, Hunter, how do you do it? You maintain a research staff of, in the words of Albert Meyer [an underfunded Course VI professor], `Science Fiction Charlatans,' yet you never fail to rake in monster sponsor bucks? I could fund Hillary's socialized medicine boondoggle in an instant if I had that kind of fiscal pull." I told him that it's merely a matter of understanding our sponsor's needs. Our sponsors are represented by middle-aged middle-managers who need three things: Booze, good hotels, and hookers. Keep 'em busy with free trips and the slick dog and pony shows, provide them with pre-written notes for their upper-managment, and the money will keep rolling in. Do I worry that one day some sponsor will wake up and say "Wait a minute--what the hell did I do last night? Did I shell out a million bucks to fund a LEGO Chair in the Media Lab? Tequila!" Over the years I've learned not to care. I could pull the cigar out of W.C. Field's mouth and sell it back to him at a profit. And he'd thank me for the deal. I'm that goddamn good. Obligatory Plug By the way, if you enjoyed this article, you can read it again in my upcoming book: Being Gonzo -- Life on the Digital Information SuperHighway Fast Lane. Buy one now. [1] https://philip.greenspun.com/humor/media-lab https://philip.greenspun.com/humor/media-lab [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20000823222608/http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/voodoo/is764/toc.html https://web.archive.org/web/20000823222608/http://www.mit.ed... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20000928224954/http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/voodoo/is764/negroponte.html https://web.archive.org/web/20000928224954/http://www.mit.ed...
- DonHopkins 7y agoJoi Ito just resigned! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/business/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joichi-ito.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/business/mit-media-lab-je...
- DoctorOetker 7y agoIn my opinion, Anand should now publicly praise Ito's decision to resign. Check out my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20904781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20904781 to understand why.
- garfieldnate 7y agoWikipedia says he died today.
- reifwithfraud 7y agoFolks should remember that Rafael Reif was the provost under Susan Hockfield who orchestrated the whitewashing of research misconduct allegations that MIT Professor Ted Postol launched against MIT Lincoln Laboratory for using fabricated data to report results of a critical ballistic missile defense test to the Pentagon. MIT was found "guiltless" by Provost Reif after an "internal investigation" was conducted over the course of almost a decade. Steve Weiner (a highly respected former director of ballistic defense research at Lincoln for almost 20 years) has since accused MIT of engaging in a "kickback scheme" whereby Lincoln would tell the MDA whatever it needed to hear about the viability of a Starwars-inspired missile defense shield in order for executives at Raytheon to receive multi-billion dollar contracts to build it. The phony missile defense tests that Postol challenged intensely for almost a decade were one small but critical piece of the massive fraud that MIT has perpetrated against the United States taxpayer here. President Reif needs to be incarcerated, not just fired!