
Joi Ito Resigns from M.I.T. Media Lab After Outcry over Jeffrey Epstein Ties - Anon84
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/business/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joichi-ito.html#
======
p0llard
Internal email this afternoon from President Reif:

To the members of the MIT community,

Last night, The New Yorker published an article that contains deeply
disturbing allegations about the engagement between individuals at the Media
Lab and Jeffrey Epstein.

Because the accusations in the story are extremely serious, they demand an
immediate, thorough and independent investigation. This morning, I asked MIT’s
General Counsel to engage a prominent law firm to design and conduct this
process. I expect the firm to conduct this review as swiftly as possible, and
to report back to me and to the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation,
MIT’s governing board.

This afternoon, Joi Ito submitted his resignation as Director of the Media Lab
and as a professor and employee of the Institute.

As I described in my previous letter, the acceptance of the Epstein gifts
involved a mistake of judgment. We are actively assessing how best to improve
our policies, processes and procedures to fully reflect MIT’s values and
prevent such mistakes in the future. Our internal review process continues,
and what we learn from it will inform the path ahead.

Sincerely,

L. Rafael Reif

~~~
pryce
If Xeni Jardin's claim below is true, Joi Ito needs to resign from more than
just MIT:

"I told the @nytimes everything. So did whistleblowers I was in touch with
inside @MIT and @Edge. They printed none of the most damning truths. @joi is
on the board of the NYT. THANK GOD FOR @RonanFarrow"

EDIT: NYTimes is now indicating that Ito has resigned from NYT Co board,
effective immediately [2].

[1]
[https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1170352857952002048](https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1170352857952002048)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1170449747041226757](https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1170449747041226757)

~~~
anon2947
I read a few more of Xeni's tweets, and wanted to get HN's honest opinion on
them. It seems (to me) like a lot of people on Twitter (and HN?) are over-
reacting.

For example, Xeni's pinned tweet references this other tweet
([https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728](https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728)),
which implies that anybody who was ever at a dinner with Epstein should be
considered complicit in Epstein's crimes. Take this quote, for example:

> I would like to not be sued or disappeared, but I would also like people to
> seriously register the fact that Amazon and Google CEOS/Founders were at the
> gathering alluded to in this Twitter thread. Their names are in the screen
> grab. Don’t sue me please. I have no money.

This seems to imply that anybody at this dinner (that Epstein) was complicit.
Other attendees include Daniel C. Dennett, Steven Pinker, Marvin Minsky (yes,
that Marvin Minsky!). Is it just me, or does that strike anybody as an
overreaction?

~~~
paganel
Marvin Minsky was directly named by one of the victims in documents that were
published a couple of days before Epatein’s convenient death, and those
documents were mentioning that Minsky had directly sexually profited from an
under-age woman. In other words he was a paedophile.

I submitted an article detailing all this stuff on the day of Epstein’s death,
it had reached the top links of HN in less than an hour but then it was
ominously flagged. I lost a great deal of let’s call it respect for the people
that keep this website up, apparently letting other people know that a now
dead AI luminary was a paedophile is considered tabu.

~~~
AndrewBissell
I have also noticed HN mods engaged in blatantly political flagging, probably
driven by deference to YC's tech industry pals. My link to the Bloomberg
article about all the WeWork CEO's utterly scammy self-dealing shot to #1 on
the front page, then was flagged by mods as "dupe" even though another link to
the article was nowhere to be found. Totally killed off the discussion.

~~~
dang
You've noticed no such thing. Users flagging one of your submissions isn't
"mods engaged in blatantly political flagging".

The WeWork story has had numerous huge threads—two major ones have been on the
front page today alone. With suppression like this, who needs promotion? Ditto
for the Epstein story, our only relation to which is nausea and a desire to
hold it at the end of a stick, same as everybody else.

Please use the HN search box that appears at the bottom of every HN page and
you'll have no trouble finding the major discussions that you're claiming
don't exist here.

~~~
AndrewBissell
If only Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, and Jeff Bezos had
demonstrated a similar desire for remove from Jeffrey Epstein, maybe this
forum wouldn't have to grapple with an avalanche of headlines about Epstein's
close ties to the tech industry, but alas.

~~~
dang
There would be an avalanche of Epstein stories anyway. The tech angle just
adds to it.

------
CrazyStat
This seemed inevitable after the New Yorker article yesterday detailing how
Ito and his team hid Epstein's involvement from the university, which had
disqualified Epstein as a donor.

Taking money from a dirty source is one thing; hiding it from the university
because they've blacklisted that person in particular is about as unforgivable
a crime as you'll find in academia

~~~
asveikau
I remember similar stories about people who took money from Harvey Weinstein,
for example there was an AIDS nonprofit he gave millions to.

It all highlights the difficult job facing people tasked with taking money
from donors in this way. They won't always have 20/20 hindsight. They may
learn about sketchiness after they already took the money. They may be so
blinded by what they see as generosity and good will that they may be less
able to see character flaws. I am not saying any of this happened here, but I
would not like to be in a position to make these decisions.

~~~
lopmotr
What's wrong with a charity accepting donations from someone naughty? It
doesn't make them complicit in their offences. Criminals often donate money to
charities and victims in an effort to get reduced sentences, at least in my
country.

~~~
watwut
Should rich criminal have ability to buy lesser sentence then poor criminal?

------
areoform
This is gossip, but it’s well founded gossip as I am one or two hops away from
him. Epstein was very upfront with the people he worked what that he liked
“young woman” while giving them money and invited them to his parties etc.

I think it was his way to enmesh them and make them unwitting partners in his
systemic abuse. Most people just went along, and were eventually given a
massage from a child at his behest to further enmesh them into the conspiracy.
No one could play the innocent whistleblower because of their tangential
complicity.

The gossip I’ve heard is confirmed by those who knew him -
[https://www.salon.com/2019/07/09/i-was-a-friend-of-
jeffrey-e...](https://www.salon.com/2019/07/09/i-was-a-friend-of-jeffrey-
epstein-heres-what-i-know/) ;

> In the early ‘90s, at a Joan Rivers dinner party, my wife and I encountered
> Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of disgraced British publishing mogul Robert
> Maxwell and Epstein’s girlfriend for a brief period in the '90s. She has
> been accused of recruiting and grooming girls and women for Epstein; she
> denies this. I’d met her several times with Epstein; we were also “friends,”
> in that transactional Manhattan way. And might now become better friends.
> “If you lose 10 pounds, I’ll fuck you,” she said, with my wife standing next
> to me. And she too became dead to me.

> As his legend grew, many others were fascinated or amused or impressed by
> Epstein or simply delighted that he wrote checks to their charities. _His
> interest in young women was no secret; Donald Trump famously applauded it in
> 2002. Vicky Ward, who published a long profile of Epstein in Vanity Fair in
> 2003, recently revisited transcripts of her interviews: “What is so amazing
> to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and just blithely
> overlooked it . . . all mentioned the girls, as an aside.”_

It’s why he was so disgustingly coy about what he did. It’s why Ito, who is
quite smart, probably knew what was what. And it’s why he deserves his fall
from grace.

~~~
burtonator
I thought you were going to mention that comment about Trump saying that
Epstein liked "his girls on the younger side".

I think what's interesting is the ethical dilemma here.

You have 1000s of people around you. No one is saying anything. Then they
offer you money. Do you take it? Everyone else is? Then the counter to this is
that of the 1000s of people that come crashing down why is it just Joi Ito and
a few others?

The key detail here is that Joi isn't an isolated "king" like the rest of the
people here.

They will all escape justice.

~~~
dualboot
The sad reality is that the only folks who actually "suffer" from shame are
those that have the capacity to see the world from a perspective other than
their own.

------
jakelazaroff
Good. Here’s a particularly damning passage from Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker
article [1]:

 _> According to Swenson, Ito had informed Cohen that Epstein “never goes into
any room without his two female ‘assistants,’ ” whom he wanted to bring to the
meeting at the Media Lab. Swenson objected to this, too, and it was decided
that the assistants would be allowed to accompany Epstein but would wait
outside the meeting room._

 _> On the day of the visit, Swenson’s distress deepened at the sight of the
young women. “They were models. Eastern European, definitely,” she told me.
Among the lab’s staff, she said, “all of us women made it a point to be super
nice to them. We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance
that they’re not there by choice, we could maybe help them.”_

Ito worked with someone whom his staff suspected of continuing to traffic
women — _right there in their own office_.

He also enriched himself from this relationship. From this NYT article:

 _> Mr. Ito acknowledged this past week taking $525,000 of Mr. Epstein’s money
for the lab, as well as $1.2 million for his personal investment funds._

Truly despicable.

[1] [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)

~~~
nf8nnfufuu
Sorry, I don't get it. Somebody having assistants who look like models and are
from Eastern Europe is suspicious of trafficking women? How? Why?

I have heard about Epstein, obviously with hindsight all sorts of things he
did can be seen in a new light. I just don't understand what is so damning
about the passage above.

Would somebody who is trafficking women really take them everywhere he goes? I
thought it would be more of a secret affair.

~~~
tptacek
That Epstein was problematic --- something that in essentially no doubt at
this point after his indictment, imprisonment, and subsequent suicide --- was
so well-understood to the Media Lab team _at the time_ that they were
considering intervening to help Epstein's escorts, on the off chance that they
had been trafficked. That is not a position most people's bosses ever put them
in, but it's what Ito did to staff at the Lab.

If your point is "they probably weren't trafficked at least in the lurid sense
we mean when we talk about trafficking", sure, but that's not the point. The
point is that Ito's collaboration with Epstein was not incidental, but rather
deliberate, overt, and actually disruptive to the operations of the Lab.

~~~
roenxi
That sort of rests on whether the women were 'trafficked' in any meaningful
sense. If they were not then the media lab team were being judgemental and
unpleasant even though they did turn out to be right about his character. If
they were then everyone involved is potentially at moral fault, irrespective
of who was accepting what.

The greater story of this scandal has parts that should never have happened
and parts that were fine. Giving money to MIT and visiting with a bevy of
attractive women is eccentric - crass even - but not troubling. The scandal
isn't Epstein's giving it is that he was running a child prostitution ring.

~~~
ritchiea
Why are there inevitably people who want to do the mental gymnastics of
assuming innocence for a man convicted of sex trafficking?

I understand assuming innocence the first time someone is accused of anything
unsavory because mistakes happen. But once you are convicted, serve jail time
and are suspiciously behaving in the same manner...

Who are we serving by assuming innocence?

And let me remind you that in society we have different standards than a court
of law. A court of law has to assume innocence, in public we might be doing
another human being who is a potential victim great good by expressing concern
about the nature their relationship with a known felon & abuser.

~~~
scarejunba
I get part of the impulse. The concept that attractive Eastern European women
spending their time with a billionaire means that they were trafficked
somewhat strips them of agency. Like "you wouldn't do this of your own
accord". Maybe they would.

Of course, in this case, the fellow turned out to be a monster. But Sir
Richard Branson is on the level AFAIK and he hangs out with attractive women.
Presumably they enjoy the company.

EDIT: I can't answer the threads below because I've been timed out for making
this comment. Fair enough, but I should clarify: My point is _precisely that_.
It's the child prostitution that's the problem. You can just point at the
"solicitation of a minor" thing directly. Making it about the attractive
Eastern European women is completely unnecessary and only useful to decry the
notion that they may choose otherwise than what the MIT folks would choose.

~~~
dwaltrip
Richard Branson wasn't convicted of child prostitution. At the time of the
event quoted by the OP, Epstein had been. For fuck's sake...

------
currymj
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)

~~~
cg46
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
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
_> 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.

------
nickpinkston
I'm not sure if this is self-aware or not, but Ito's fund is called:"Neoteny",
meaning "the retention of child-like attributes through adulthood".
Apparently, Epstein's funds / projects were named with innuendos. (edited)

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/neoteny#section-
over...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/neoteny#section-overview)

~~~
freyr
Ito reminds me of Epstein in that I have no idea how either got their money.

Wikipedia must be skipping over some important details, but it describes him
as a two-time college dropout, a nightclub manager in Japan, (EDIT: nevermind,
mystery solved! His MIT bio says he was the founder of Japan's Digital Garage
and CEO of its first ISP [1]), then he's the president of MIT Media Lab,
visiting Harvard Law School professor, on several boards of directors, and
runs a VC fund.

I'm not implying he got his money by nefarious means, just that it's
interesting to see people who find success (and in this case, downfall) within
these institutions despite their unconventional backgrounds.

[1]
[https://www.garage.co.jp/en/company/](https://www.garage.co.jp/en/company/)

~~~
rhizome
Beyond the business stuff, he was basically Japan's first Western-style
(Wired, Mondo 2000, etc.) New Media personality. Back in the early 90s he also
took form as an action sports impresario, techno culture maven, and theorizing
gadabout.

~~~
ohnope
>Back in the early 90s he also took form as an action sports impresario

Could you elaborate here / further reading? That aspect of Joi’s background
interests me.

------
IvyMike
In the other thread, people were saying "I'd take Epstein's dirty money and do
good with it."

But the problem is that doing so normalizes the behavior. Everybody who has
doubts about working with the creep looks around the room, and when they don't
see anyone else objecting, ends up thinking "I guess we're all ok with this
behavior" and goes along to get along.

~~~
krapp
> Everybody who has doubts about working with the creep looks around the room,
> and when they don't see anyone else objecting, ends up thinking "I guess
> we're all ok with this behavior" and gets along to go along.

Let's be honest - a lot of people in the tech community and related
subcultures (particularly genre fandoms) _are_ either ok with, or are
ambivalent towards, this behavior, or have a lack of empathy which leads them
to view things in purely game-theoretical terms.

~~~
liability
It's a trait that I've heard derisively referred to as "engineer autism" in
some circles, though I doubt the literal truth of that description. But
whatever it's called or ascribed to, there seems to be a genuine underlying
trend of some sort. It's a topic I'd like to see defined and addressed; as
tech becomes more important to society the pathologies of engineer types
become more and more socially relevant as people with those traits acquire
more power and status.

~~~
daseiner1
the probably correlation between technical interests in childhood and
adolescence and reduced socialization is an obvious factor imo

~~~
liability
I suspect that's at least a large component of it. It might also be reversed;
kids who have trouble socializing pick up tech hobbies that are more conducive
to a low-social lifestyle. It might be one or the other depending on the
individual, or it may be that one exacerbates the other.

------
tempsy
Why would Bill Gates need Epstein to be the middle man for his $2 mil
donation? Why didn't he just donate to the Media Lab directly?

And given his insistence that the donation be made anonymously, it seems like
he was well aware the optics would be bad if the public knew there was a
connection between the two, and yet he chose to make the donation through
Epstein anyway.

~~~
baron_harkonnen
Even though we won't find out more, this Epstein issue has given us a tiny
glimpse to the mechanics of the plutocracy we really do live in.

It's pretty clear that for certain individuals higher up in the social
hierarchy than most of us will ever see, Epstein offered a very exclusive
service. And was part of a world of that we mostly think of as fiction.
Similar to when the Snowden leaks happened we all saw that "yes, the
government really does perform mass surveillance on the population", we are
now seeing that "yes, the extremely wealth do play by completely different
rules and shape our society in complex ways".

But we won't see much more. Joichi Ito is probably the least powerful person
caught up in all this, and him and people like him provide the public
retribution we all want to see. We'll see the justice has been served, and
return the illusion that this was just a strange aberration rather than the
status quo.

~~~
AndrewBissell
Probably the most astute comment on this entire thread. In particular the
willingness of putatively skeptical and inquisitive people to accept the most
transparent, dissembling excuses from the likes of Gates has been quite a
sight to see.

------
danso
Someone who was asked by Ito to be on the MIT Disobedience Award jury wrote a
long tweet thread yesterday calling out Reid Hoffman for his defense of Ito:
[https://twitter.com/anandwrites/status/1169952673988300800](https://twitter.com/anandwrites/status/1169952673988300800)

~~~
mrosett
I don't think that thread shows that Hoffman defended Ito, despite the
author's claims. I'm basically willing to take Hoffman's responses at face
value. Clearly there was an ongoing investigation, as demonstrated by Ito's
resignation today. When news broke about Ito and Epstein last month,
Giriharadas was pretty far down on the list of people who Ito needed to answer
to (since he was just part of what I imagine to be a mostly ceremonial award
committee.) I see evidence that Hoffman didn't think Giriharadas should be
dictating the course of the investigation, but not evidence that Hoffman tried
to impede in any way. After all, this same Disobedience award went to #MeToo
activists last year...

Ultimately, this thread does feel a lot like the author making a dreadful
scandal about himself.

~~~
AndrewBissell
This isn't the only dodgy behavior that's been reported about Hoffman in
regards to Epstein. It's also been reported that he hosted a well attended
party in Silicon Valley where Elon Musk introduced Epstein to Mark Zuckerberg.
We will probably not see much more on this thanks to the plutocratic wagon
circling that baron_harkonnen talks about, but it's naive to take Hoffman's
statements at face value here.

~~~
mrosett
Do you have a source for this?

~~~
AndrewBissell
[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-
case...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-grows-
more-grotesque)

------
adrian_mrd
Adjacent: that’s well-written PR spin from the Gates’ camp:

> “Epstein was introduced to Bill Gates as someone who was interested in
> helping grow philanthropy. Although Epstein pursued Bill Gates aggressively,
> any account of a business partnership or personal relationship between the
> two is simply not true. And any claim that Epstein directed any programmatic
> or personal grant making for Bill Gates is completely false.”

Note the part “Although Epstein pursued Bill Gates aggressively” which implies
that Gates was a victim or at least an uninterested party in this affair. If
that is true, why then cough up $2 million dollars via Epstein? Why does it
matter if Epstein was aggressive or not if Gates wrote the check?

Some follow-up questions that Gates should answer to clarify his role:

1\. What correspondence or communications did Gates have with Epstein
regarding the $2 million donation to the MIT Media Lab?

2\. What correspondence or communications did Gates have with Epstein since
his conviction in 2008? Best option would be to list all of the times Gates
(including any representatives from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) met
with or liaised with Epstein since 2008 - including via any intermediaries or
third parties and electronic communications.

3\. What is the definition of business partnership in Gates’ above refuttal?

4\. What is the definition of personal relationship in Gates’ above refuttal?

PR and disaster management ‘gurus’ often wordsmith their clients’ way out of
these affairs.

Gates should at least clarify his role here. Otherwise, his position as a
philanthropist also seems tainted.

~~~
nashashmi
> Why does it matter if Epstein was aggressive or not if Gates wrote the
> check?

To respond to concerns that the two were spotted together frequently. This is
an answer to a question. Figure out the question and you will understand.

~~~
liability
Surely Bill Gates hires big burly men who can enforce his personal space. I
find it hard to believe that Bill Gates could earnestly be the victim of such
hounding for more than a brief moment.

~~~
tzs
Gates is sometimes surprisingly accessible.

Some lawyers I know were in Seattle to take depositions for a big lawsuit they
were on. They went to dinner at a restaurant, and then went out to get a cab
back to their hotel.

A bunch of other people were leaving at the same time, and people going in the
same direction were agreeing to share cabs so people would not have to wait as
long.

They were about to get in to the cab with one of the other diners who was
going in the same direction and agreed to share, when they realized that other
diner was Bill Gates.

Since Microsoft was the defendant in the lawsuit they were taking depositions
for, and they were lawyers for the plaintiff, and were in the midst of a fight
with Microsoft's lawyers over whether or not they could depose Gates, they
realized sharing a cab with Gates was probably not a good idea, so waited for
the next cab and let someone else share Gates' cab.

~~~
adrian_mrd
Not sure if that illustrates that Gates was accessible or that it further
illustrates the point that the super-rich (including their entourage of
lawyers) travel in small, connected circles.

------
moron4hire
My mother works in the non-profit fundraising sector, originally centered on
education, but now runs her own consultancy for non-profits of all sizes. She
knows pretty much all the rules and laws about donations and propriety within
fundraising foundations. I've helped her with her business, both in actual
operations and for her IT concerns. I've also worked in other regulated
industries, so I have a fair amount of familiarity with what sort of rules and
laws are involved and what the consequences of violating those rules tend to
be.

We are livid right now. She has to help a lot of orgs navigate it, where the
rules can sometimes be tricky and somewhat counter-intuitive, especially if
you don't have accounting experience (and let's face it, most people in
fundraising foundations are some of the lowest paid people on campus, and you
get what you pay for). Stuff that could get you fined or jail time for what
lay-people might consider an honest mistake (but definitely should be
considered 101-course material for fundraisers, considering the stakes).

Joichi Ito's actions go way, way beyond that. Who knows just how far the harm
he has caused will actually spread. He's harmed the reputation of his
institution, his program, and anyone associated with the program. He's lied
and cheated for personal gain. It's a no-brainer that he needs to go to jail.
Whatever investigation will follow should be focused on finding all the people
who knowingly helped him to lock them up alongside him.

~~~
esoterica
Jail for what? Accepting donations from a pedo is not a crime.

~~~
davrosthedalek
He hid the donations from MIT. Since Epstein was on the blacklist, MIT might
have a civil case against him. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that would
be, for example, "fraud".

~~~
moron4hire
Also, using your professional relationship as a foundation employee to solicit
funds for your personal, private ventures is suuuuuper illegal.

~~~
davrosthedalek
Indeed, but I have not seen that he solicited them. Of course the fact that
they were made stinks to high heaven.

~~~
moron4hire
It doesn't matter if he literally asked or not. Anti-corruption laws are much
more concerned with the appearance of impropriety than they are with the
actual turn off events. That is to say, they err on the side of caution.
Anything that could have come about through abuse of the professional
relationship is verboten, even if it was "happenstance".

Simply put, disregarding all of the other issues, given the prior relationship
between Ito and Epstein for the MIT Media Lab donations, there was no
legitimate path for Epstein to invest in any private venture of Ito's.

------
DonHopkins
"reminder to self: don't invest with or take money from assholes" -Joi Ito,
Mar 12, 2008

~~~
0x00000000
Not an asshole if your world views align I guess.

~~~
topspin
I'm just glad we appear to be mostly past the 'well so what if he gave money
they did good with it herp derp' stage. If it had been NRA money heads would
have rolled immediately. No spiked stories. No game theory debates about what
wonders might be achieved with such donations despite the source.

Yes, it is about world views. Everything is.

------
asdfasgasdgasdg
Not too long ago someone posted this: [https://www.wired.com/story/joi-ito-ai-
and-bus-routes/](https://www.wired.com/story/joi-ito-ai-and-bus-routes/)
Basically, Mr. Ito describes his role in torpedoing a change to bus routes
that would have had significant benefits for most students in a school
district. He wrote a shitty op ed about it and got the plan cancelled without
ever interviewing the people who had designed it. He had thought they hadn't
engaged the community, but in fact there was a lengthy community engagement
process that led up to the plan. The parents who were mad were wealthy parents
who would have had slightly less convenient bus schedules.

Anyway, in this retrospective he never apologizes for his blunder. I'm not
really sad to see him go. He seems like a bad character.

------
moonka
>Mr. Ito has been a board member of The New York Times Company since 2012. The
company did not immediately comment on Mr. Ito’s decision to leave M.I.T.

This is the 7th paragraph in the story. Shouldn't it be higher up?

~~~
floatingatoll
What about that paragraph leads you to believe it should be higher or lower in
the story, relative to its current position?

~~~
ctab
The connection between the subject of the story and the publisher of the story
really ought to have been higher.

However, news is currently breaking that Ito has since resigned from The NY
Times Co. board as well.

~~~
tanderson92
Probably this as well is worth noting:
[https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1170352857952002048](https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1170352857952002048)

------
jdkee
It is now apparent that Joi Ito was an opportunistic scumbag who elevated
personal gain above ethics. Good riddance to him. And good riddance to the
reputation of Nicolas Negroponte as well.

~~~
curiousgal
Personal gain? He didn't pocket the money as far I know.

Ethics is also a touchy subject, people can't fully agree on whether taking a
criminal's money to do good with it is ethical or not. So it's not as cut and
dried.

He did however violate MIT policy so that's a valid reason for his resignation
or even firing in my opinion.

~~~
CrazyStat
Epstein also invested in Ito's private investment fund, which financially
benefits Ito directly.

Personally I suspect Ito was more incredibly naive than scumbag, but being
naive is also not a good trait for the leader of a prominent group like the
Media Lab.

------
frankwiles
Jesus. Who lets a guy get away with that for so freaking long?

~~~
chaostheory
Most people would if it’s normalized. Not long ago Saudi Arabian money and PRC
money was just fine. It’s hard not to take it when it’s about survival.

~~~
khazhou
> Not long ago Saudi Arabian money and PRC money was just fine

Wait, did something change this morning? AFAIK it's still fine and dandy to
take Saudi money (esp. if you're the US government) and Chinese too.

~~~
khuey
If you work in tech you have to launder the Saudi money through Softbank but
otherwise it's fine.

------
gdubs
“Ronan Farrow is here”, has got to send chills down the spine of powerful
people the way “Mike Wallace is here”, used to in the days of yesteryear.

------
tw04
Just a heads up, this thread is now full of accounts defending Epstein and his
pedophilia full force. No idea who's behind it, but it's... Interesting.

------
JabavuAdams
The social network / ostracism obligation aspects of this are fascinating and
personal for me.

Within the last couple of years I became aware of an extended family member
who was intermittently violently abusing his wife. This is someone I see at
most once a year, usually at funerals.

I spent a lot of time thinking about what I would do if I found myself in a
social situation with this person. The best I could come up with was personal
ostracism.

I decided that I would not call him out, due to fear of unintended
consequences, but that I would treat him as a pariah. At a recent family
reunion, I was set to avoid him, but all of a sudden he was next to me, asking
after me, and jutting out his hand for a shake. I reflexively shook his hand
(I fucking hated myself at that moment), but managed to turn away and put my
back to him as he was talking.

I feel like I eventually held up to my principles, but was a disgusted by how
the people around me just ignored the elephant in the room. And yet ...
difficult situation to be in. I mean this as a bystander, not someone with
something to gain from associating with him.

EDIT> The time of "open secrets" needs to be over. I dislike gag orders and
secret settlements because they deprive the public of crucial information. How
many people are victimized by someone who is anecdotally known to be
dangerous, but still socially tolerated? Epstein was radioactive since
2008-2011, and we should be very critical of anyone who treated him normally
after that period.

EDIT2> My family member had already been reported to the police and his wife
went back to him. So, he's on record as being an abuser. I am not covering for
him in that sense.

------
peter303
The Media Lab was near the top of the heap of university-industrial consortia
in terms of both glamour and income. There really wasnt a need for all this
back-channel stuff.

~~~
sytelus
This is what surprises me. MIT is very well endowed, has an extra-ordinarily
wealthy alumni network and overall Media Lab is perhaps better positioned
financially than any other lab. In emails, the lab director is begging for
$100K from a billionaire doner so he can extend one contract. I don't
understand.

------
scandox
I'm curious about Media Lab. They setup a branch in Dublin way back and it was
such obvious and painful BS. But overall have they produced interesting work?
At all?

~~~
dbcurtis
> But overall have they produced interesting work? At all?

Yes, quite a lot. (In the American sense of 'quite', not the British...)

Just look at what has come out of the Life-Long Kindergarden lab, and see how
many things you recognize. Historically the Media Lab has done a lot of very
creative things. A person could spend a happy lifetime doing nothing but
following up on ideas that started there.

This is a bad episode for the Media Lab, for sure. But don't paint all of the
researches within with a scarlet letter because of it.

\-- Edit: Translate English to English

~~~
mcguire
But I don't actually know anyone who has used Scratch.

------
bogomipz
>'In an email in October 2014 — six years after Mr. Epstein had pleaded guilty
to a sex charge involving a minor in Florida — Mr. Ito wrote that a $2 million
gift from Mr. Gates was “directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” Peter Cohen, then a
development official at the lab, wrote in a subsequent email, “For gift
recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey’s name as the impetus
for this gift.”

Mr. Cohen, now the director of development for computer and data science
initiatives at Brown University, did not respond to messages seeking comment
on Saturday.'

While Ito is rightfully being held to account I think it's important to
consider all the other enablers who condoned and accepted these arrangements
as well.

~~~
chmaynard
More heads will roll. Be patient.

~~~
mayankkaizen
More names will come out. But only smaller, if any, heads will roll.

The world has given me far more reasons to be pessimistic.

------
Gatsky
Two things stand out from this fiasco. 1: Even very powerful and successful
people are dazzled by money. 2: The ability of an individual or a family to
accumulate massive private wealth inevitably leads to a lot of messed up
behaviour.

~~~
kmlx
you don't need wealth to be messed up.

------
DonHopkins
"Resigning to spend more time with my guild."

Joi Ito: What World of Warcraft taught me about being a better leader
(chronicle.com) - 32 points by yarapavan on Apr 28, 2011

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2493209](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2493209)

[https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-director-
of-...](https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-director-of-mit-media-
lab-talks-of-encouraging-openness/31112)

------
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!

------
briantakita
The network associated with Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell (daughter of
Mossad Agent Robert Maxwell) runs deep in the tech industry. Also note that
Aaron Swartz was involved with the MIT Media Labs.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGSOydtOgY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGSOydtOgY)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGSOydtOgY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGSOydtOgY)

------
electriclove
This is just one of sooo many.. the others truly need to be held responsible
as well.

------
nray
Where did Epstein's money come from? He claimed to be a hedge fund manager for
select clients, however in the aftermath of his rearrest after the Miami
Herald series there were comments from Wall Street people that there was
little evidence of how he actually made so much money. Pure speculation, but
the original source of Epstein's donations might also prove a problem.

------
paggle
It was tactically smart to initially refuse to resign... it shifted the
Overton window so that now he’s seen as defeated simply by stopping being the
Media Lab director, instead of needing to make any attempt at restitution for
the damage he has caused to Epstein’s victims and to MIT.

------
caz111
There needs to be an investigation as some time into what is under the Ark
Academy in Brent, London, sponsored by Arki Busson, who gets a mention in
Epstein's Little Black Book.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/50295603@N02/48589712471/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/50295603@N02/48589712471/)
[https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/10/487685.html](https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/10/487685.html)

------
swhitt
New internal email from President Reif:

To the members of the MIT community,

After recent events centered on the Media Lab, I know there is a tremendous
sense of pain, sadness and disappointment across campus and throughout our
global community. We all want answers.

For now, I write to share two important updates. Last Saturday, we retained
the law firm Goodwin Procter to perform a thorough investigation of the facts
surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s interactions with MIT. This work has already
begun. We have asked the firm to explore all donations received by MIT, both
those that came directly from Jeffrey Epstein and his associated foundations,
and any donations that may have been received at the direction of Jeffrey
Epstein. In addition, the investigation will cover who at MIT may have been
aware of the donations. We have instructed Goodwin Procter to follow the
evidence where it leads, and we are counting on this independent investigation
to ascertain the facts. As I noted on Saturday, the firm will report back to
me and to the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation, MIT’s governing
board.

If you have information relevant to the investigation that you would like to
share with the law firm, please email REDACTED.

To be thorough, such an investigation will take time, on the order of a month.
Although media reports will continue to focus on the issues during this time,
I am hopeful that the MIT community will avoid forming a final judgment before
the process is complete and will respect the privacy of members of our
community who may have become involved in this matter in the course of doing
their jobs for MIT.

Once we have the results, and once our separate internal review of our current
processes on gift acceptance is complete, we will be able to understand what
happened and what needs to change. Supporting the members of the Media Lab
must now be at the center of our attention. The Provost has asked the Dean of
the School of Architecture and Planning to work with the Media Lab community
on interim leadership for the lab and a search for the next director. The
interim plan will be finalized shortly, and we will share the news as soon as
possible, along with other plans to support the lab community. I know this is
a difficult and disorienting moment. But I have profound faith in the MIT
community to learn from these events and find a constructive way forward.

Sincerely,

L. Rafael Reif

------
chasing
I feel bad for the students, professors, and other people affiliated with the
MIT Media Lab who will likely actually pay the price for all of this.

Ito will be fine.

------
docker_up
I don't understand the outrage.

He was convicted of a crime, and he served his time. In hindsight, the
sentence was too light, but as regular people are we really supposed to
understand all the details? If I met someone who went to jail, should she be
exiled forever after serving her sentence? I just don't understand. And people
get lenient sentences all the time, am I as a non-lawyer supposed to
understand this and then give my own sentence on top of that? Or should some
people who commit crimes should never, ever be allowed to interact with other
humans again?

As far as I can tell, from the perspective of those around him in 2014,
Epstein was convicted of a crime, and served his time. By 2014, he had
committed no further crimes from what people knew at the time, so why exactly
is this an outrage. Obviously in 2019, we know that he committed further
crimes and he rightly went to jail, and it's sad that he won't face justice.
But in 2014, did anyone know this and should they be treated so harshly if
they didn't?

The only real problem was covering up the donation, which Ito definitely
should have been fired for, but I don't understand why Epstein at that time
should have been considered a persona non grata.

The biggest question is: should criminals never ever be forgiven for their
crimes? And should anyone who decides to forgive them and associate with them
also be considered despicable as well? Or is it just _some_ criminals
depending on their crime? Who judges which crimes should never be forgiven and
which should?

~~~
telaelit
He raped and trafficked underage girls. He video taped them and flaunted them
around powerful people. You really want to defend a monster like that?

~~~
gfodor
The poster is not defending Epstein (is anyone?) but is instead defending (in
the abstract) people who may have met him, heard that he had been convicted
and served time for sociliting underage women, and, given no other information
about him, decided that given he had served his time with no further
convictions that he had been rehabilitated and should not be alienated.

For every Epstein, there are others who have been convicted of similar (or
worse) crimes who, ten years later, have served their time, are reformed, and
are no longer a threat to society. This doesn't mean you don't have the right
to choose to avoid interacting with them (I personally wouldn't when it comes
to underage solicitation as was Epstein's conviction), but I'm inclined to
agree with the poster that I wouldn't morally judge those who do because they
on good faith, and with no contrary evidence, assume the person has faced
justice and has been rehabilitated. I think it's important that as a society
we don't have a general rule that it's OK to discriminate against convicted
felons -- it seems wise and just to, in general, try to forgive and be fair to
those who have been convicted of a crime in the past and who have no other
evidence to disprove the claim they have changed and are rehabilitated.

To me this has no bearing on the details of this specific case here, because
based upon peoples' behavior it seems likely that everyone involved actually
knew this guy was still an abuser after his conviction. It sounds like Epstein
made a point of telling people about his behavior as a means of controlling
them, so in general anyone who took money from this guy I think is guilty of
at the very least a moral failure.

~~~
docker_up
Thank you, this is exactly the point I'm making.

And in this specific case, it sounds like the MIT director attempted to
conceal donations from someone he knew was banned, so his resignation is just.

------
bogomipz
>"He told the crowd that he had “screwed up” by accepting the money, but that
he had done so after a review by the university and consultation with his
advisers."

Interesting his choices made it unimpeded through his own conscience though.

------
lifeisstillgood
More and more problems seem to be linked to provenance of money. Money
Laundering of dirty cash is one major obvious example (see impact on
everything from London house prices to international banking) and yet just
being able to trace / label money coming out of Epstein and into MIT lab would
have raised this issue a decade ago

Imagine somehow being able to tag bitcoin address / transactions with "this
money came from a man convicted of sex trafficking"

Then having that tag appear on the accounts sheet at NIT

Would that help?

~~~
totalZero
That's such a bizarre concept. Morality isn't something that can be inherited
by accepting research contributions, in my book.

Why taint the money, when it can help us learn, build, heal, and grow?
Epstein, not the money he donated, is responsible for bad things he did.

As an alum, I'm not surprised at the Institute's cowardice, but I'd like to
see MIT stand up for someone, ANYONE in its community when under fire
publicly, just once.

~~~
throwaway2048
So what happens when Epstein wants special access? His entire trade was
influence peddling (usually by means of inducing people to commit sex crimes),
the dude is going to want access to people.

He donates 2 million dollars, threatens to pull the funding when you don't let
him visit.

What happens? If you think its anything besides "welcome with full access" I
don't what to tell you, because that's whats going to happen in 999/1000
cases.

He was already on the MIT donation blacklist for this very reason.

This is way beyond "the dude is evil, but his money isn't"

~~~
totalZero
If Donald Trump can invite the Taliban to Camp David, I think MIT can have
meetings with a donor who is a felon. As long as MIT doesn't engage in illegal
activity, I don't see the problem. Public opinion of Epstein is the public's
business, not MIT's.

------
Sadkov
Why do people make such a hypocritically huge fuzz out of some pimp, like
Epstein? Look at poor neighborhoods - there are literally millions pimps
prostituting millions of women in the world. I doubt any of you want to pay
for their education, so they could stop prostituting and do useful jobs, and I
doubt any of these prostitutes want to work at a sweatshop or a factory, or
even in office, doing heavy and unhealthy work in disciplined environment.

~~~
whowhatwhy
If they're in the US, I am paying for their education.

------
DonHopkins
MacArthur Foundation @macfound

The MacArthur Foundation today accepted the resignation of Joi Ito as a member
of our board and our affiliate @LeverforChange , effective immediately. We
thank Ito for his service.

[https://twitter.com/macfound/status/1170443088055144448](https://twitter.com/macfound/status/1170443088055144448)

Good god, did they really have to thank Joi Ito for his service?

------
kamfc
Can someone explain if knowing someone nowadays can mean a ruin career by
modern day social witch hunt or is there a darker reason behind Joi Ito
resigning?

------
balena
Total hipocrisy

------
crispyambulance

        > I don't get it.
    

This is one of those things where somebody noticed that things just didn't
seem right and the proper response to that is to raise concern and ask
questions.

Sorry, but a 60-something "finance" guy with an entourage of teen models
doesn't add up. Sure some of these people have trophy wives half their age,
and it raises eyebrows, but this is far beyond that and totally unacceptable
once somebody looks into this guy's history.

At a minimum Ito should have used better judgement after being altered to this
stuff.

~~~
oh_sigh
"teen" is a big range. If they were 14 - then that is a problem. If they're 19
then I don't really see why I or anyone else should care. In fact, it seems
like one would be attempting to remove autonomy from these women if you tried
to prevent an adult from serving as an assistant "for their own good" because
you're creeped out by the employer.

~~~
codysan
Human trafficking is illegal regardless of age. That’s why people would or
should care. No one is talking about firing assistants besides you.

~~~
googlryas
Clearly it is - I don't know why you would think I implied otherwise. My point
is that maybe you have a hunch they are trafficked, but it is a logical leap
to simply state it as a fact that they are trafficked.

~~~
liability
I'm confused. Are you and oh_sigh the same person?

~~~
googlryas
Yes - sorry. I had one logged in on my laptop and one on my phone which I
switched to. I initially created this secondary account to talk to some other
poster about hiring advice at my company without linking it to other
autobiographic details I've possibly posted on my other account in the past,
but have since unfortunately muddled the two in a big OPSEC fail(don't worry -
I'm not in cybersecurity).

~~~
ryacko
Your not behind ryanlol too, are you?

Strange arguments from people with weak hamming distances to my first name.

~~~
googlryas
No - I only have two accounts that I post under, basically one with an
autosaved password on my computer, and one on my phone. And I don't see what
is so strange about my arguments. I'm not arguing that Epstein was a good guy
or that his assistants necessarily weren't trafficked. I'm saying no one knows
- and so far, not one of them has come forward, so regardless there is no real
way to know. I would be saying the same thing if people were arguing that all
the children who went to a church were raped by a pedophile priest who clearly
raped, say, at least 10 children. I don't see my points as logically too
difficult - merely that the subject is a clear baddie, and that means if
someone says he has 19 fingers and another person responds that he probably
has 10, that person will be accused of defending the baddie.

And really, this isn't a point I particularly care about. But message boards
let you focus on parts of a conversation and address them independently of the
rest. This isn't something I'd try to defend to the death, or would even feel
the need to rebut in actual conversation. But as long as threaded messages
exist, I don't see a problem with talking about these details.

------
cattlefarmer
> This is well-known now.

Please avoid this.

Let me preface this by saying that I have no idea who Epstein is except that
he's some rich, white guy that got caught up in some kind of sex scandal, was
arrested and is now dead. I'm not belittling his acts nor ignoring his
accusers, I'm saying that I _did not know_. Now let me explain why.

Over the past couple of years, there have been non-stop stories of one
powerful white man after another being revealed doing heinous sexual things to
women. The reports are non-stop and it has come to the point that I have tuned
them out. A good number of us here are in the tech industry, we're busy enough
as it is. Whatever free time we have is focused on things that are more
immediate. A large number of people in my immediate bubble have no idea who
Epstein is. I'm not even sure if his first name is Jeff or James, except that
it starts with J.

I'm likely not the only one.

So according to the HN guidelines, please assume good faith when people ask
why.

~~~
colechristensen
How can we expect the republic to survive if some of the most capable people
try so actively to not pay attention to what's going on outside their bubble?

~~~
paganel
Because they’re too busy counting their money. We’re the lackeys of the mighty
and powerful and when the “common people” sometime try to react to the visible
power imbalances some of us feel the need to obey and defend our masters.
Source: me, a desilusioned programmer approaching my 40s

~~~
rmrfrmrf
> too busy counting their money.

Or lack of money. The current economy, even for those in the professional
class (given the absurd costs of living in tech cities), is designed to
maximize precarity and force people into such a hustle mentality that they can
barely pay attention to the world around them. It is truly the billionaire
class vs the rest of us. We're all in this together.

~~~
paganel
You would think so from the outside but given the current level of
technological development today's billionaires would be nothing without us, IT
people (I include here everything from devops, to programmers to QA etc etc),
without some lawyers and some medical professionals. Even the billionaires'
goons are almost nothing without the technological-heavy guns they employ to
potentially carry out their goon-related stuff, and said technology depends,
like I said, on us, IT people.

~~~
zentiggr
What makes you think anyone with billionaire status thinks about anyone of
lesser status as anything but cogs in their personal machine? So their
existence depends on others, in reality... when did they last have any contact
with reality in any meaningful way?

If you can be bought and sold, you are a pawn, not a player.

------
rayuela
There are definitely participants in these discussions with a very specific
agenda. Some accounts, like nf8nnfufuu, are going really far out of their way
to defend Epstein. Just search for how many responses they've written
throughout this thread to see what I mean.

~~~
currymj
that account in particular eventually admits to not having read much about the
case.

i honestly am pretty sure the vast majority of the contrarians really are just
not familiar with the whole Epstein story, and may only be hearing about it as
it intersects with the tech world.

~~~
rayuela
Yeah, because writing a dozen replies defending Epstein was definitely much
less effort than a quick google search of the guy...

------
draw_down
[https://twitter.com/Joi/status/770625716](https://twitter.com/Joi/status/770625716)

~~~
floatingatoll
Text of linked tweet:

> _reminder to self: don 't invest with or take money from assholes_

@ 4:20 PM · Mar 12, 2008

------
joewee
Edit: Removing my comment after reading the detailed New Yorker article linked
from The NY Times.

~~~
bradly
> Joi shouldn’t be hung for giving someone the benefit of doubt.

Epstein had already been convicted and banned from MIT donations.

In a position of leadership you are responsible to keep a healthy and safe
workplace. That’s part of the job of running a lab. If you are unable or
unwilling to do that, you should not be in a leadership role.

~~~
joewee
Ok maybe I’m missing something. Joi allowed him to visit the lab after he was
banned?

~~~
Twirrim
And took donations after Epstein was disqualified as a funder (after his 2008
conviction), and deliberately manipulated things to make them anonymous. It's
blatant, done with full understanding, and (stupidly) with an email trail of
evidence.

'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.” Forwarding the
response to a member of his staff, Ito wrote, “Make sure this gets accounted
for as anonymous.” Peter Cohen, the M.I.T. Media Lab’s Director of Development
and Strategy at the time, reiterated, “Jeffrey money, needs to be anonymous.
Thanks.”'

and

' But the e-mails show that Ito consulted closely with Epstein and actively
sought the various donations. At one point, Cohen reached out to Ito for
advice about a donor, writing, “you or Jeffrey would know best.”'

and so on, and so forth. The article is worth a read.

~~~
nullc
> And took donations after Epstein was disqualified as a funder (after his
> 2008 conviction)

Can you point me to where it's described exactly when Epstein was blacklisted
by MIT and why? If it's in the newyorker article, I'm missing it.

It points out that Epstein's donations were anonymous and that he was
blacklisted but doesn't appear to order the events. It looks like Epstein was
anonymously donating back around 2002 also, so was he also blacklisted then?
Why?

~~~
joewee
It’s in the New Yorker article linked from the nytimes article. But correct
there is no timeline. But the references to emails that show leadership trying
to hide the source of donations sounds bad.

------
tgb29
To any Asian Americans reading this, I’m sorry for how the media discriminates
against your identity. Out of all the affiliations with Epstein, why do they
focus on this one?

------
Temasik
that is why Satoshi Nakamoto the inventor of BitCoin is Craig S Wright!

makes sense now

------
joosters
“The trouble with tainted money is t’aint enough of it.” - William Booth.

Playing devil’s advocate here: Accepting tainted money as charity is not the
problem. Promoting the donors, giving them prestige, contacts, access or some
other benefits as a result of donations is the problem.

~~~
pvg
It is absolutely, very much a problem to take money from an unrepentant abuser
and predator who is still publicly flaunting his abusive and predatory ways.
You could argue that, perhaps, such institutions should also not cater to the
merely wealthy and vain. But you can enable vanity without enabling sex
trafficking.

~~~
i_am_nomad
What if the money could be accepted in a way that could not possibly convey
any status or glory back to the donor - something permanently anonymous - and
also did not allow the donor any guidance over the use of the money? I’m
asking as a philosophical question, not suggesting that Ito’s actions might be
justified.

~~~
pvg
It's certainly a complex and worthy philosophical question but what does it
have to do with a child rapist contributing to MIT? My take is 'nothing'.
Like, you shouldn't have child rapists contributing to your institution. It
seems morally and philosophically trivial.

------
soulofmischief
This article is filled with strangely matter-of-fact language regarding
matters which are still unsolved:

For example:

> Mr. Epstein — who killed himself in jail last month while facing federal sex
> trafficking charges

~~~
goatinaboat
Unfortunately the cameras spontaneously failed so we’ll never discover how
someone can break their own neck

~~~
NikkiA
Of course if they had an 'active' indicator, them failing could have been the
impetus for him knowing he had a window of opportunity. Rather than 'pure
coincidence'.

------
CalChris
Good. These were in no way innocent ties. He knew who Epstein was and misled
people. Ito could be on the hook for civil fraud. The elements of fraud are:

    
    
      a purposeful misrepresentation of a fact
      with knowledge that it is false
      to a victim who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation 
      who suffers actual loss as a result.

~~~
FireBeyond
That's reaching, a whole lot. Ito knew who Epstein was, as did everyone else -
Epstein's conviction wasn't a secret. That harms Ito through his poor decision
making, but other people were just as capable of knowing who Epstein was.

Who suffered an actual loss as a result of these donations? Civil fraud is
grasping, some.

~~~
CalChris

      (1) a purposeful misrepresentation of a fact
      (2) with knowledge that it is false
      (3) to a victim who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation 
      (4) who suffers actual loss as a result.
    

(1) If I lie to you (2) knowingly, and (3) you are convinced by my lies (4) to
part ways with your money, then I have defrauded you. That you nobly donated
to MIT doesn't matter.

~~~
solidsnack9000
With regards to (3) and (4), who are you describing? Epstein gave the money to
the Media Lab, or brokered the delivery of the money to the Media Lab from
people who knew who he was.

------
m0zg
Contrarian view: as long as the person in question was not compromised by e.g.
flights to the pedo island (like Bubba Clinton, who took dozens of flights,
dismissing USSS on a number of them for some reason, hmm), and as long as the
integrity of the lab was not affected by Epstein's involvement, I see nothing
wrong with taking his money. He's despicable, sure, but if he's not buying
influence, I'm OK with him supporting science rather than blowing that money
on satisfying wealthy pedophiles.

~~~
tomjakubowski
"The departure of Mr. Ito from the media lab came after he spent days trying
to make amends. At Wednesday’s meeting, which was organized by professors at
the program, he reiterated his apology. He described for the first time the
amount of money he had received from Mr. Epstein, and said he had twice
traveled to Mr. Epstein’s island home in the Caribbean to seek donations."

~~~
m0zg
Well, he deserves what he got then. No sympathy. I was not familiar with the
details of his involvement.

------
breck
Those in glass houses...

“They were models. Eastern European, definitely,” she told me. Among the lab’s
staff, she said, “all of us women made it a point to be super nice to them. We
literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they’re not
there by choice, we could maybe help them.”

And what did these people go home and start doing for Eastern European models
since then? I find this pretty condescending. I know a few Eastern European
models who are incredibly smart, and perhaps dated some folks who they
wouldn't have dated if they were born in the U.S., but used those
relationships to get themselves out of possible hellish, abusive, misogynistic
situations back home (this is somewhat speculation, but our current First Lady
seems to fall in this category). They were young but had been through hard
times _like the disintegration of the Soviet Union and starvation_ , and
aren't so naive. They were honest about things, and weren't living in
delusion. Some of the toughest and smartest people _I 've ever met_ in fact.
There just seems to be a lot of phony moral outrage here.

~~~
liability
> _" I know a few Eastern European models"_

Do you?

~~~
khazhou
HN users are a varied bunch. There is no reason to not believe him.

~~~
liability
That particular user is someone I distrust, based on past interactions (a
habit of speaking with the "royal we" for instance.)

~~~
breck
I'm sorry you distrust me, but I do my best to speak the truth as I see it. My
name is Breck Yunits, I've been on this site for 12 years. You can find more
about me at breckyunits.com. You can see over a decade of commits in just one
of my GitHub accounts at github.com/breck7. You can find me on LinkedIn,
Twitter, etc. You are free to post your opinions and criticisms of me, I
really am grateful for it and often learn a lot from criticism.

> a habit of speaking with the "royal we" for instance.

This is a fair point. I'll explain. My Tree Notation ideas are simple, bold,
and have very big implications if I'm right. I have gotten tremendous help
from hundreds of people, and have had thousands of conversations about it. My
initial paper had initials of many people who read the initial drafts and
helped me publish it. I got a lot of negative comments when I posted it, with
the most common that it was nothing original and/or that I was some crazy nut
detached from reality. Instead of subject my friends and collaborators to
that, I've just decided to be the shield that takes the heat, while everyone
else does the hard job of pushing these ideas forward. I think it's now pretty
close to the point where people see that we were right after all, and Tree
Notation may indeed eat the software world, and you will set a lot of new
names, and mine will fade out.

