
The Epstein scandal at MIT shows the moral bankruptcy of techno elites - danielmorozoff
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/07/jeffrey-epstein-mit-funding-tech-intellectuals
======
peteforde
This 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.

------
BurningFrog
"This single event shows how corrupt this class of people I already disliked
is!" is the definition of how prejudice works.

~~~
darawk
It'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.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's not clear at all. In fact it's not just not clear, it's not even remotely
true.

------
nitwit005
Just 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
I 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!)

~~~
nitwit005
I assume you responded to the wrong thread?

~~~
DoctorOetker
no, it was in response to your comment: you write "charity scandal", but
according to me it's something deeper which is being portrayed as a mere
"charity scandal".

------
rowanG077
I 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.

~~~
bb88
What'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.

~~~
davrosthedalek
No quite. He also hid the donation from MIT, as Epstein was blacklisted. That
part alone should get him fired.

~~~
bb88
What? How does that prove my point wrong? If anything, it amplifies my point.

~~~
davrosthedalek
In the sense that it's not quite clear if he would have had to resign if
Epstein were not blacklisted.

------
coldtea
Why 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-
reduce...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-
compassion/)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Secrets-How-Rich-
Got/dp/031637...](https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Secrets-How-Rich-
Got/dp/031637895X)

~~~
andybak
Maybe 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)

------
lpolovets
I 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
Donating 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
Folks 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!

------
lone_haxx0r
In such a fucked up world, how do people even manage to focus on the silliest,
most irrelevant issues?

------
RandomInteger4
Seems 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.

------
howeyc
New 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
I think the first set of criteria are entirely valid. The second half of your
post might require more background information.

------
navs
This 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?

------
jdkee
Money is the root of all evil.

------
ve55
Kind 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-
billio...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-
philanthropy/)

~~~
natalyarostova
The important thing is that the guardian/nytimes figured out how to connect
this back to tech=bad, which is an ongoing interest of theirs.

------
notus
From 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.

~~~
peter_l_downs
Read some more [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-
univer...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-
research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein)

------
burnstek
If 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
So 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.

~~~
davrosthedalek
I agree, but these contributions were anonymous. So the reach of the
sleazeball to boy scout effect was limited to the people Epstein talked to
anyway, and could see the sleazeballness first hand.

~~~
anigbrowl
They were anonymous because the recipients _hid the fact of their origin_.
There are receipts of their conversations about this.

~~~
loeg
Your comment is problematic for Ito, but non-responsive to the parent
comment's argument.

The thread is: bb88 proposes that Epstein's charitable giving to MIT was a way
to reputation launder ("turn a sleazeball into a boyscout").

davrosthedalek disputed that claim, as the donations were anonymous.

The reason for anonymity doesn't matter; the net effect is there is no
plausible reputation laundering effect from anonymous donations.

~~~
davrosthedalek
Is it actually known who requested the anonymization? It's clear that it was
required to hide it, but was it something Epstein wanted or only accepted? I
didn't see it in any of the articles, but I might have missed it.

