4 ms·

the HN comments on all the recent Epstein stories have been very strange. I have to assume at least some of the more contrarian views are coming from people wh

the HN comments on all the recent Epstein stories have been very strange. I have to assume at least some of the more contrarian views are coming from people who haven't been following the full story in the US news, and so don't quite grasp the nature of the allegations. The case is far from just "some rich guy turned out to be an abuser". If you can't understand why the reaction is so strong against those who maintained ties with Epstein, it's worth looking into the full story, perhaps starting with the Miami Herald's "Perversion of Justice" story last year. https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein

dls2016 7y ago
I also think (or hope) that these contrarians don’t realize how long the facts in this Herald story have been suspected of being true.
cg46 7y ago
I think it's reasonable to agree that Epstein is a despicable person who should be maligned, ostracized, and punished for his misdeeds… while simultaneously believing that it's possible for there to exist a situation in which the good done by "maintaining ties" with this person could outweigh the bad. Of course, this depends on the nature of those ties: How much good are they doing, versus how much bad? If it's possible to do that cost-benefit analysis, we might as well do it, because why not? In this particular case, I have no idea how much additional good the Media Lab was doing as a result of this money. Thus, it actually is impossible for me to do the cost-benefit analysis, because I don't know the benefit side of the equation. But I can enumerate some of the costs: - It contributed to Epstein being able to feel that he's accepted by society and can shameless appear at meetings and such, in public, with reputable people, despite engaging in despicable behavior. Alternatively, ostracizing him would've sent a strong message and perhaps contributed to a change in his behavior. - It signaled to people at large that Epstein is a good guy who donates to charitable causes. (This was somewhat mitigated by keeping the donations anonymous.) - It signaled to people at large that it's okay and normal to work with people who do despicable things. (This was also somewhat mitigated by keeping the donations anonymous.) - It risked to the Media Lab's reputation if discovered, thus hindering the organization's ability to do more good in the future. - Other things I'm leaving out? So clearly a ton of bad. And I'd guess the bad outweighed whatever good was done, given that many people who were working within the Media Lab were opposed to accepting the donations. But I don't know if it's as simple as "if the guy is bad then always say no full stop." That seems like an oversimplification, and not necessarily the best way to analyze it.
- burtonator 7y ago
  I think this is a good analysis. Makes me think that in the future these organizations are still going to accept the money but bring in a "fall guy" to accept the blame when the anonymous donor is found out. I don't think Joi would have done this personally. He's a smart guy.
  - cg46 7y ago
    > I don't think Joi would have done this personally. He's a smart guy. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying there's a conspiracy to cast Joi as the fall guy and he's going along with it? I highly doubt that's the case. He may be smart, but that doesn't automatically make him ethical or socially aware. It also appears he gained quite a lot personally by dealing with Epstein.
  - paggle 7y ago
    A lot of smart people, when they acquire power, start to behave recklessly. It’s not necessarily irrational — powerful people are almost never held to account for their crimes, so you see people getting life in prison for robbing a liquor store but a $3 million fine for creating the opioid epidemic. So maybe it’s because they’re smart that they behave recklessly — because really, Joi Ito is going to be fine, and for every one of him there are 1000 that nothing happens to at all.
ryacko 7y ago
I think it is simple to understand common understanding of criminal justice when no one asks where was Michael Jackson’s servants when he decided to spend private time with terminally ill children.
- Thorrez 7y ago
  (Ironically) I'm unable to understand what your comment is saying.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dls2016 7y ago

I also think (or hope) that these contrarians don’t realize how long the facts in this Herald story have been suspected of being true.

cg46 7y ago

I think it's reasonable to agree that Epstein is a despicable person who should be maligned, ostracized, and punished for his misdeeds… while simultaneously believing that it's possible for there to exist a situation in which the good done by "maintaining ties" with this person could outweigh the bad. Of course, this depends on the nature of those ties: How much good are they doing, versus how much bad? If it's possible to do that cost-benefit analysis, we might as well do it, because why not? In this particular case, I have no idea how much additional good the Media Lab was doing as a result of this money. Thus, it actually is impossible for me to do the cost-benefit analysis, because I don't know the benefit side of the equation. But I can enumerate some of the costs: - It contributed to Epstein being able to feel that he's accepted by society and can shameless appear at meetings and such, in public, with reputable people, despite engaging in despicable behavior. Alternatively, ostracizing him would've sent a strong message and perhaps contributed to a change in his behavior. - It signaled to people at large that Epstein is a good guy who donates to charitable causes. (This was somewhat mitigated by keeping the donations anonymous.) - It signaled to people at large that it's okay and normal to work with people who do despicable things. (This was also somewhat mitigated by keeping the donations anonymous.) - It risked to the Media Lab's reputation if discovered, thus hindering the organization's ability to do more good in the future. - Other things I'm leaving out? So clearly a ton of bad. And I'd guess the bad outweighed whatever good was done, given that many people who were working within the Media Lab were opposed to accepting the donations. But I don't know if it's as simple as "if the guy is bad then always say no full stop." That seems like an oversimplification, and not necessarily the best way to analyze it.

burtonator 7y ago
I think this is a good analysis. Makes me think that in the future these organizations are still going to accept the money but bring in a "fall guy" to accept the blame when the anonymous donor is found out. I don't think Joi would have done this personally. He's a smart guy.
- cg46 7y ago
  > I don't think Joi would have done this personally. He's a smart guy. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying there's a conspiracy to cast Joi as the fall guy and he's going along with it? I highly doubt that's the case. He may be smart, but that doesn't automatically make him ethical or socially aware. It also appears he gained quite a lot personally by dealing with Epstein.
- paggle 7y ago
  A lot of smart people, when they acquire power, start to behave recklessly. It’s not necessarily irrational — powerful people are almost never held to account for their crimes, so you see people getting life in prison for robbing a liquor store but a $3 million fine for creating the opioid epidemic. So maybe it’s because they’re smart that they behave recklessly — because really, Joi Ito is going to be fine, and for every one of him there are 1000 that nothing happens to at all.

ryacko 7y ago

I think it is simple to understand common understanding of criminal justice when no one asks where was Michael Jackson’s servants when he decided to spend private time with terminally ill children.

Thorrez 7y ago
(Ironically) I'm unable to understand what your comment is saying.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]