13 ms·
The Epstein scandal at MIT shows the moral bankruptcy of techno elites
- rowanG077 7y agoI really don't follow. What does Epsteins background have to do with the funding he was bringing to MIT? People aren't one dimensional. What Epstein did was disgusting, it has nothing to do with him funding some MIT research. MIT taking that funding is not in any way supporting what Epstein did.
- tempsy 7y agoThink about what both sides get in this transaction. Wealthy elites are using universities for prestige and to wash their reputations of past transgressions. Universities, in turn, get easy money from the rich.
- rowanG077 7y agoYou think Epstein funding some research washes him of his past transgressions? I have never heard anyone say that. Nor do I think we should stop people that have done wrong from doing right afterwards because it could "wash their reputations from past transgressions". We have something called the law that should bring justice to people.
- tempsy 7y agoI think you are more naive than you think. Think for a second. The most egregious example of this is the Sackler family's ( Purdue Pharma/Opioids) massive donations to the arts/museums. They should not receive the glory and praise for their generosity to the arts for triggering the deaths of so many Americans in the pursuit of drug profits.
- rowanG077 7y agoWhy not? They did both. We should recognize them for both. Why do you feel the need to portray them in such a one dimensional way?
- bradly 7y agoYou'd like to recognize a rapist for their charitable givings? edit: This was a poor comment. I shouldn't have phrased my point in such a crass way when I do not actually believe rowanG077 thinks what I wrote above. Sorry for my tone, rowanG077. It wasn't helpful to the conversation.
- rowanG077 7y agoDepends on what you mean by recognize. I certainly don't think we should hide it. I also don't think we should "forget" the person is a rapist. But the main point I am making is that we shouldn't stop the rapist from making charitable givings. Nor should we punish institutions for taking that money.
- bradly 7y agoMany people believe the charitable givings were what gave Epstein his credibility, allowing him to continue what he was doing. Accepting the donations was enabling Epstein.
- rowanG077 7y agoIs there actual proof of the government knowing about Epsteins actions and looking the other way because of his donations? I find that really hard to believe...
- bradly 7y agoI do not know about the U.S. government, but at M.I.T. he had been already been banned from charitable giving, so Joichi was having to lie about the source of the money.
- bb88 7y agoIsn't that the way the world works? Someone does something bad, gets caught, and all of a sudden gives an endowment to some university or pediatric research agency? I mean, isn't that the way billionaire's revamp their image?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tempsy 7y agoWhat’s your point? If elite child prostitution rings are “the way the world works” why should we continuing normalizing that as a society?
- bb88 7y agoOh no, not at all. GP said he'd never heard of that in society before. Just trying to point out his ignorance.
- rowanG077 7y agoNot really. Someone doing something really bad will always have their image tainted. That doesn't mean we should stop them from doing good. Look at Bill Gates for instance. People still give him a lot of shit for what he did 20 to 30 years back even though he objectively has done a lot more good now then bad. Bill Gates did both of those things. We shouldn't forget either.
- darawk 7y agoDoes that actually launder anyone's reputation? Epstein was doing this sort of stuff before he was ever arrested. He seems to have been legitimately interested in funding science research. Unfortunately the world is actually complicated and people aren't simply one-dimensional villains. The guy did some genuinely good things, in a seemingly honest way. That doesn't in any way absolve him of the horrible things he did. But it's not at all clear that the purpose of his donations was some sort of reputation laundering.
- 7y ago
- human20190310 7y ago> You think Epstein funding some research washes him of his past transgressions? No, but it helps him maintain his social standing, which was a key factor in the lenient sentence he got for his conviction. Connections were a form of insurance for Epstein.
- rowanG077 7y agoIs there any proof to your claim?
- human20190310 7y agoThe Washington Post did a piece on the unusual handling of Epstein's case, e.g. having his case reviewed at the highest level of the Justice Department in an attempt to overrule the Miami prosecutors: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-pressure-on-a-prosecutor-how-epsteins-wealth-and-power-steered-acosta-toward-lenient-deal/2019/07/12/2a7bdd08-a421-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-pressure-o...
- rowanG077 7y agoI can't view this for some reason. Is there an alternative where I can read this article?
- nafey 7y agoWell that is probably naive view of the matter. People with money cultivate such relationships to influence the discourse ever so slightly in their favor. Please look up Anand Giridharadas who had written quite extensively on this.
- rowanG077 7y agoThat is more of a problem of individuals with large amounts of money having too much power then anything else.
- bb88 7y agoWhat's ironic, is that's the same mentality that Joichi Ito had to resign for. Money that comes from illegal or immoral activity colors it. You may think it's the same money, but the source of the money is important for institutions that have moral and ethical standards.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- davrosthedalek 7y agoNo quite. He also hid the donation from MIT, as Epstein was blacklisted. That part alone should get him fired.
- bb88 7y agoWhat? How does that prove my point wrong? If anything, it amplifies my point.
- davrosthedalek 7y agoIn the sense that it's not quite clear if he would have had to resign if Epstein were not blacklisted.
- anigbrowl 7y agoHere is what Epstein's background had to do with it: there's good reason to think that much of his wealth came from blackmailing other people that he encountered or lured into the circles of organized sexual abuse, and that this fact was widely known. That's why Ito at the MIT media lab wrote to his colleagues that epstein's donations should be listed as 'anonymous' to minimize the scrutiny thereof. If you are having difficulty understanding this issue then you are either immature or socially illiterate. You might as well ask what harm a cancer on one of your organs is since it hasn't metastasized yet.
- rowanG077 7y agoThe problem was Ito accepting donations from a black listed person. Nothing more nothing less. Ito wasn't in the position to make that call.
- anigbrowl 7y agoYes he was. If he felt conflicted about it he should have resigned then, rather than doing so just now after his involvement was publicly exposed. I wish you would half as hard at trying to understand this as you do at refuting it; I can't bear to continue this conversation further.
- notus 7y agoFrom what I've read the first criminal case against him was in 2005 and the dinner with the MIT scientists was in 1999. The donations to Harvard were in 2003. I don't see the value in pointing the finger here.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- peter_l_downs 7y agoRead some more https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-univer...
- ve55 7y agoKind of weird how they discuss a single case and then literally write that one should "refuse the money of tech billionaires". Sounds like an absurd overreaction. Worth checking out https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
- natalyarostova 7y agoThe important thing is that the guardian/nytimes figured out how to connect this back to tech=bad, which is an ongoing interest of theirs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- burnstek 7y agoIf you have a problem with MIT taking Epstein's money, then you have a problem with money in general. We all take money in some fashion from disgusting, psychotic, and evil people on a regular basis. Particularly so when we're on social security, medicare, or another social program. It's like the people who are against hunting, but who are happy to eat store bought meat.
- bb88 7y agoSo taxes are mandatory. They don't change the reputation of a person. Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout, when in fact deep down he's profiting on human misery.
- rowanG077 7y agoHow do they make a sleazeball look like a boy scout?
- bb88 7y agoThe Jeffrey Epstein Modern Art Wing The Jeffrey Epstein Pediatric Fund for Incurable Childhood Illnesses The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT The Jeffrey Epstein Fund for Worldwide Peace (Note: some of these I'm sure I made up...)
- rowanG077 7y agoThis doesn't answer the question. You really think a person that knows Epstein has done the things he has done and knows about the "The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT" is going to think that Epstein is some A OK dude?
- bb88 7y agoMost likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers. Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude."
- BurningFrog 7y ago"This single event shows how corrupt this class of people I already disliked is!" is the definition of how prejudice works.
- darawk 7y agoIt's clear at this point that traditional journalists are opposed to tech because of what it's done to their profession. I don't blame them for being upset, but the way it's manifesting here is not good for anyone.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tomjakubowski 7y agomorozov is more like an academic than a journalist
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoIt's not clear at all. In fact it's not just not clear, it's not even remotely true.
- pessimizer 7y ago"This single event is additional information that I'm pointing out because it reinforces points I've made frequently in the past, while pointing out different events." That's the definition of empirical argumentation.
- deogeo 7y agoNow try applying it to other groups of people.
- whatshisface 7y agoIt's still missing a crucial ingredient: you have to demonstrate that your list of events is an unbiased sampling of all relevant events, as opposed to a cherry-picked list of useful events. For example, it would not be an "empirical argument" to convince everybody that a coin was unfair by publishing an article whenever it came up heads. An example isn't evidence, and a list of examples aren't evidence. Evidence is when you have a list of examples along with the other necessary information (which can take many forms, for example I wouldn't mind seeing a list of examples from a known-non-morally-bankrupt control group).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lone_haxx0r 7y agoIn such a fucked up world, how do people even manage to focus on the silliest, most irrelevant issues?
- Chris_Chambers 7y agoIsn’t it more morally bankrupt to not deprive a scumbag of his money when given the opportunity?
- jdkee 7y agoMoney is the root of all evil.
- howeyc 7y agoNew charity donation questionnaire for prospective donors... Have you: * Engaged in any activities the general public would find reprehensible? * Plan on doing so in the future? Are you: * Generally disliked by the general public? * Possibly going to be targeted by public outrage at some point? --- If you answered yes to any of the above, we regret to inform you that your charitable donation cannot be accepted.
- andybak 7y agoI think the first set of criteria are entirely valid. The second half of your post might require more background information.
- nitwit005 7y agoJust seems to be using this event to rant about stuff they were already upset about. The first name mentioned is Marc Zuckerburg, who has nothing to do with the actual scandal. This is hardly the first charity scandal related to accepting donations from questionable donors. The issue predates electricity, let alone modern tech companies.
- DoctorOetker 7y agoI am still genuinely trying to understand what happened. In your interpretation: 1) What is the motivation of the donor (Epstein)? 2) What is the motivation of the acceptor (Ito)? If your answer is 1) Prestige 2) Money Then that does not work: they can not reach a mutual understanding about whether Epstein is allowed tell the world he donates to the Media Lab, which can be seen by splitting up in cases: 1) if the mutual understanding is that Epstein is allowed to tell the world he donates to Media Lab : in this case Ito's motive evaporates, because he was fully aware and scared shitless of Epstein's name getting associated with the Media Lab. 2) if the mutual understanding is that Epstein can not tell the world he donates to Media Lab : in this case Epstein's motive evaporates, since it doesn't raise his prestige. So all the authors of these articles are systematically individually either unintentionally overseeing the inconsistency, or intentionally obscuring a deeper fact. Let's hypothesize it's for the tax deductions for the root donors (like Bill Gates etc.) instead: this too doesn't make sense, if you find a scheme for tax deductions etc by donating, why not donate directly? if for some reason the tax scheme can only work with an intermediary... why on earth select a radioactive person like Epstein? So the tax evasion angle is misdirecting chaff too... Consider that many of the unrecognized victim(s) of Epstein (and the buyers of his underage prostitution ring) are now adult. Consider the typical promises that were made to these girls (money, and future prospects). Many of these girls are adult women today, possibly studying, PhD studying or working. If some of the girls insist on studying some place, Epstein needs to pipe hush money, scholarship, salaries into the faculties and departments. My interpretation is that it is hush money. Bill Gates is not shy, he openly donates to many causes. He wrote books etc... Before this scandal there was nothing controversial about the Media Lab, so why would he donate anonymously? Even if he insisted to donate anonymously, why donate through Epstein? Bill Gates should be smarter than that, why are we holding Ito to a higher standard than Gates? If Ito & Co were handling the connection with Epstein with radioactive precaution, why didn't Bill Gates geiger counter crackle beyond repair? And why on earth would Gates pay off someone else's hush money? Suppose Gates paid hush money (or was blackmailed by) Epstein for services rendered (say in a somewhat distant past) to forward the hush money to the victim(s) at Media Lab. That could also explain why Gates would go through Epstein: if he paid the Media Lab directly, the shorter connection towards the victim(s) might be construed as a financial acknowledgement of his involvement with the victim. It also explains why he would go through Epstein as opposed to involving a clean person: the clean new intermediary between the Media Lab and Gates would be an extra point of failure who could leak the secret. While it might be relatively easy for the "already-did-his-time" Epstein to find a lab or department head, and convince him with his crocodile tears to cooperate in a cloak of charity to pipe the "compensations" ( hush money, work position salary for the victim ) through the department head. Instead we have Big Media suddenly (and suspicously) spinning stories and redirecting attention to either academic vaporware like growboxes from the Media Lab, or "billionaire circuits" naturally attracting male and female "deplorables". (which is just slutshaming all over again!)
- peteforde 7y agoThis is, in my opinion, a stunningly poor reaction to the Epstein/Media Lab trash fire. You can believe, as I do, that Epstein was a monster and Joi fucked up in the worst possible way and also retain enough independent thought to see this article for what it is: an opportunistic rant by an angry person who imagines themselves the lone voice of reason against a vast conspiracy that includes everyone from wealthy Greek aristocrats (lol) to Bill Gates to Timothy Leary. Please. There's a lot to be frustrated by in the culture and cult of tech, but the irony of Morozov posting this op-ed on a site that is usually proudly powered by a mountain of open source created by the sorts of smart kids that spend time researching at the MIT Media Lab is galling.
- navs 7y agoThis is an angry piece. The Epstein case doesn't surprise me. Most people with money are morally reprehensible or have dealt with morally reprehensible people. What I can't understand is where TED talks play into this? Are they evil by proxy?
- coldtea 7y agoWhy techno elites? All elites (political, financial, tech, medicine, etc) are morally bankrupt. They're like regular people, but with power and money, both known corruptors, reduced empathy [1], and all the motivations to increase their reach. And they were probably quite psycho which helped them get at the elite level to begin with [2]... [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Secrets-How-Rich-Got/dp/031637895X https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Secrets-How-Rich-Got/dp/031637...
- mistermann 7y agoTechno elites often project an air of moral superiority where others are mostly silent would be my guess.
- andybak 7y agoMaybe the contradiction is thus: 1. We expect people higher up the status ladder to behave better than most people. 2. Getting higher up the status ladder probably means you are statistically likely to be "worse" than most people by virtue of the traits it requires to get there. (Please excuse the "better/worse" shorthand but you all know what I mean)
- RandomInteger4 7y agoSeems absurd to ban bad people from giving their money to good causes. Bad people with money will still have money, whether you shun them or not. If you take this to it's logical extreme, you only allow bad people to give money to bad causes; especially so because the folks making these determinations allow no room for neutral causes.
- golemiprague 7y agoFor the Guardian and his ilk it is all about marking groups of people, creating an "identity" and then finding reasons to dehumanise them. It doesn't matter if it is "the techno elite", "straight white males" or "suburban soccer mums", once the Guardian marked the enemy there is no place for humanity or individuality, you work in tech you are part of the group. The previous crusade was about women in tech, basically tech people can do no right, they are tainted and will be subjected to non stop attacks, whatever the flavour of the week is, it will be attached to tech people. Lucky for us there is one place where we got some privacy and we can retaliate, the voting booth.
- lpolovets 7y agoI thought the article, and especially the headline, were overgeneralizing and weak. I looked up the author, and he has such a strong anti-tech bias. His last 4 posts (from https://www.theguardian.com/profile/evgeny-morozov https://www.theguardian.com/profile/evgeny-morozov): - The Epstein scandal at MIT shows the moral bankruptcy of techno elites - Facebook's plan to break the global financial system - It's not enough to break up Big Tech. We need to imagine a better alternative - The left needs to get radical on big tech – moderate solutions won't cut it
- galaxyLogic 7y agoDonating money to charitable causes is just a way to do good. When somebody does something good we shouldn't say "That must not be allowed because he is only trying to make himself look good". Rather than try to prevent bad people from doing good things, we should try to do good things ourselves. Condemning somebody else is a way to make yourself look good. How? When you say that someone else is bad you are implicitly claiming that YOU are not (that) bad. And you are just spending energy (if not money) to prop up your reputation. That is in fact kinda unethical because you are in fact doing nothing good to anybody else than yourself, just polishing your halo, by pointing out how bad some other people are.
- 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!