
My Apology Regarding Jeffrey Epstein - Anon84
https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/my-apology-regarding-jeffrey-epstein/
======
whowhatwhy
"I met Epstein in 2013 at a conference through a trusted business friend and,
in my fundraising efforts for MIT Media Lab, I invited him to the Lab and
visited several of his residences. I want you to know that in all of my
interactions with Epstein, I was never involved in, never heard him talk
about, and never saw any evidence of the horrific acts that he was accused of.

"

" On June 30, 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge (one of
two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18 "

~~~
sithlord
Do you do a deep dive in the criminal history of every person you deal with?
No? didn't think so.

~~~
filmgirlcw
Come on. This wasn’t a hidden secret. I can believe not everyone who did
business with Epstein after he left prison was aware, but this wasn’t a
secret; it was widely reported (the truth is, many people just didn’t care)
why he went to jail. The circles he traveled in might have changed, but from
my own experiences on the periphery of the wealthy/connected, stuff like this
comes up.

You’ll note Ito never claims he wasn’t aware of the allegations or the guilty
plea, he simply says he didn’t ever see any evidence of that behavior.

Plenty of people would pause before accepting money from someone like Epstein
and plenty of people, as we’ve seen, did not.

Those that did aren’t responsible for any of Epstein’s crimes, but it’s more
than fair that they answer questions about why they took money from someone
like him — even if the answers are uncomfortable.

~~~
TAForObvReasons
This is probably not the best time to point to SV and the influence of Milner
and the Kremlin, but it's fascinating to read PG's comments in the 2011
discussion
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143604](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143604)
and how he seems to be comfortable with the Kremlin connection even though
others seemed to have known at the time.

~~~
atemerev
So? There are many other external investors in the US companies, most
importantly from China and Saudi Arabia. This is not illegal. And US-Russia
relationships were a lot different in 2011.

~~~
TAForObvReasons
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143897](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143897)
and PG's reply captures the problem well:

> Basically, Milner is a crook, and if there was any justice in the world he
> and Usmanov would be in jail for what they have done. But there isn't, and
> there are people in the Valley who are willing to overlook ethics if you
> have enough money. The fact that Milner is now working with YC is a sad
> testament to that fact.

PG: VCs are not so high minded that they're offended by who his LPs are,
believe me.

> Actually, it would seem to be just as simple as he implies. VCs in the
> valley care only about money and don't give a hoot about morality. You
> haven't debated the fact that Milner is linked to the looting of state
> resources; you've simply said that anyone else would also take his money if
> they could.

PG: even if Yuri's money was tainted in some way, it was being used as a
counterweight to another bad thing.

This is the ultimate problem and it has nothing to do with US-Russia relations
but rather with dealing with known seedy characters

------
rhombocombus
This seems like an appropriate response. I was approached by a woman who
wanted to merge her lab with mine a number of years ago, I didn't go through
with the deal for a number of reasons, but many years later it was revealed
that this woman was a neo-nazi. I had no inkling in my business dealings with
her that this was who she was, but it would have made zero difference if I had
merged my business with hers, as I would have been in business with a nazi.
Folks make mistakes. Owning those, taking accountability for your mistakes and
moving forward with contrition is the only way to make those kinds of mistakes
okay.

~~~
madrox
I was listening to a recent podcast interview of Ricky Gervais on this topic,
where he observed “it’s not enough to apologize anymore and move on. People
want blood, people want you ruined, because it’s a point-scoring competition
now.” [1]

My only disagreement with Ricky is that I'm not sure it was ever enough, but
the people for whom it isn't enough now have a platform.

[1] [https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ricky-gervais-
takes-o...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ricky-gervais-takes-on-
verbal-terrorism-dont-apologize/) is a write-up of the podcast interview

~~~
watwut
Should it be enough to apologize and move on? I would say that such apology is
empty. There should be that part where people who were affected are made even
as much as possible, where we reflect on what was supposed to be done
differently and make changes for future.

There was really no one who voiced disagreement at the time? If no, why? If
yes, what did happened to their career and status in the organization? How
were they argued again, how did the fight at the time went? Were they
retaliated against at the time?

All these things matter and should matter, so that next time people voice
dissenting opinions in case like this and are listened to.

~~~
jaaron
The difference is between "wanting blood" and "restorative justice." In
former, vengeance is a motivating force, potentially with little regard to
making amends. Simply inflicting pain can be sufficient. In other, the goal is
to compensate, restore and reform. This may or may not require inflicting
great pain or ruining someone.

------
stickfigure
I find this tiresome. You don't need to apologize for acquaintances, or for
the hidden personal lives of people you have impersonal business transactions
with. Guilt is not spread by touch.

My guess is that you have shaken hands, at least once in your life, with
someone who (unbeknownst to you) is a truly horrible person. It's life.

~~~
JshWright
It wasn't exactly "hidden" though. Their interactions happened _after_ his
plea dead for underage prostitution.

~~~
news_to_me
It sounds like Ito probably missed that news, which I think is what folks have
a problem with — he should have done his research before accepting the money.

I think there is also a separate debate here about whether Ito should accept
or reject money from a donor who he knows is a sex offender.

Edit: seems like people are assuming he _did_ know about that past, which is
unclear to me.

~~~
JshWright
> seems like people are assuming he did know about that past, which is unclear
> to me.

According to Ethan Zuckerman, he "urged [Joi] not to meet with [Epstein]".
Presumably Epstein's past was the reason for that urging.

[http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-
the-...](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-media-
lab/)

------
cdibona
Also, Ethan Zuckerman and his Center for Civic Media is going to exit the lab
as he can't in good conscience remain:

[http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-
the-...](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-media-
lab/)

~~~
stochastic_monk
I think the information portrayed here is less favorable to Ito.

~~~
cryptonector
Quite. Though Zuckerman doesn't detail what was inappropriate about the Lab's
relationship with Epstein (besides "Epstein"), Zuckerman does say that they
tried to warn Ito about Epstein five years ago -- that should have been
sufficient to cause the Lab to separate from Epstein then.

~~~
stochastic_monk
> Joi told me that evening that the Media Lab’s ties to Epstein went much
> deeper, and included a business relationship between Joi and Epstein,
> investments in companies Joi’s VC fund was supporting, gifts and visits by
> Epstein to the Media Lab and _by Joi to Epstein’s properties_.

> As the scale of Joi’s involvement with Epstein became clear to me, I began
> to understand that I had to end my relationship with the MIT Media Lab.

Emphasis added

This doesn't go into enormous detail, but I wouldn't say he "doesn't detail
what was inappropriate".

~~~
cryptonector
I'd missed that! Visiting Epstein's properties, especially his island, makes
one radioactive.

------
thwythwy
The system has a turnkey solution to this sort of thing. Say I'm sorry. Then
reassure us in conclusory fashion you didn't do anything really bad (ignore
his prior conviction). Formulaic apology that uses phrases like "allowed him
to invest" and "funds were received with my permission" to distance from the
problem. "Equivalent" future-facing commitment to fund-raise. Return exactly
the amount of money that led to your personal benefit, don't mention any gains
on the money. Use the word "again" to reiterate empty message. Ok, everyone,
ready to move on?

~~~
yuy910616
So what should we do?

~~~
msghacq
He should step down from the boards of the Media Lab and The New York Times.
Far more information is provided in Ethan's resignation letter than in Ito's
"apology":

[http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-
the-...](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-media-
lab/)

------
tareqak
I'm somewhat surprised that MIT just took money from someone based on a
notable fundraiser's nod to do so. My understanding would be that a some kind
of financial department would handle an application from the donee citing a
joint interest between them and the donor [0]. That department would then
investigate the donor for any red flags or question marks. This news is still
pretty fresh, so I think there will be an investigation as to how all of this
came to be and we will find out if there was any oversight process and if so,
whether or not that oversight process was short-circuited in any way.

I mean I probably had to go through more for each of my job interviews and any
corresponding background checks. Furthermore, MIT probably assesses potential
students more thoroughly than what happened in this account of the event.

[0]
[https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/donations/](https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/donations/)

> The person making the gift is called the donor and the person receiving the
> gift is called the donee.

~~~
whamlastxmas
It's easy to return money or apologize after the fact. Universities are going
to attempt to take any free money they can get and not worry about it until
there's a proven public outcry.

~~~
msghacq
It wasn't just the university though. Ito also allowed Epstein to coinvest in
his personal startup investments. He also visited his houses (which were
decorated somewhere between provocatively and illegally based on residence).
Ethan Zuckerman also directly confronted Ito and was ignored:
[https://medium.com/@EthanZ/on-me-and-the-media-
lab-715bfc707...](https://medium.com/@EthanZ/on-me-and-the-media-
lab-715bfc707f6f)

~~~
tareqak
To add, it would be less likely that we would be reading and commenting on
this story if a university like MIT was not involved here: Ito would just be
some venture capitalist that did not perform adequate due diligence.

------
mLuby
> _I vow to raise an amount equivalent to the donations the Media Lab received
> from Epstein and will direct those funds to non-profits that focus on
> supporting survivors of trafficking._

Raising money to combat human (child sex) trafficking is a worthy endeavor; go
for it.

> _I will also return the money that Epstein has invested in my investment
> funds._

Using well-earned money for evil is bad. Using ill-gotten money for good is
good. If you think MIT Media Lab's research is good, keep the money and use it
for good. Giving money (back) to a bad source just makes matters worse. At
best it's a vain attempt to wash your hands of the situation.

> _Regrettably, over the years, the Lab has received money through some of the
> foundations that he controlled. I knew about these gifts and these funds
> were received with my permission. I also allowed him to invest in several of
> my funds which invest in tech startup companies outside of MIT._

Was Epstein's money even ill-gotten? The man's deplorable personal crimes seem
orthogonal to his wealth, or at least the causality runs from wealth to crime,
not the other way around.

------
ccccppppp
This person is also a board member of New York Times [1].

[1] [https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/](https://www.nytco.com/board-
of-directors/)

------
pmdulaney
I don't understand an apology in which the person apologizing admits to no
wrongdoing. If you did nothing wrong, I would expect something along the lines
of "What has taken place is extremely unfortunate, but I did not and could not
have known that what I did would entangle MIT with a criminal."

------
soheil
Does this mean anyone who attended MIT and went to the Media Lab should also
apologize because they acquired their skills through a corrupt system and now
they're reaping their rewards in their careers?

------
news_to_me
I think I'm missing something with all this — hopefully someone can link me to
better resources, or help me out.

What exactly did Ito do wrong here? It sounds like he had no knowledge of
Epstein's misdeeds while they were associates.

~~~
msghacq
Epstein's conviction for raping a minor was public information at the point
that Joi Ito raised money from, coinvested with and visited his homes. Far
more information is included in Ethan's MIT resignation post:

He should step down from the boards of the Media Lab and The New York Times.
Far more information is provided in Ethan's resignation letter than in Ito's
"apology":

[http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-
the-...](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-media-
lab/)

There's no way Ito didn't know about this, it would come up with a simple
Google search. Investors do diligence.

~~~
news_to_me
Yep, that makes sense. I wish more of that info was in the apology — Ito makes
it sound like he was just unaware.

------
strangeloops85
Some important context is in this other post and thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20757879](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20757879)

~~~
msghacq
Indeed, people should read Ethan's post as it contains _much_ more content.
I'm not even sure why Ito's apology is on HN right now. I submitted this exact
same link days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20741961](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20741961)

Shouldn't post this be a dupe?

------
throwaw-zxcvbn
FWIW, I am pretty sure that the rich cavorting with pretty young women (and
some of it in an exploitative manner, and some of them under 18, and most of
it for compensation) is going on in a lot of places, and certainly in many
parts of the Middle East, Asia, Africa.

In fact, it's probably safe to assume that anyone accepting investments from
the Middle East or Asia has very likely dealt with or taken money from people
engaging in the same or worse conduct, only that it hasn't been prosecuted
there.

If this here is the standard by which things ought to be measured and decided
now, then I would expect a lot of money be returned and/or given to NGOs and
charities.

But then, I suspect this is mostly moral posturing and virtue signalling, so
nothing substantial will happen.

~~~
calcifer
It's funny how this comment in article about an American child sex trafficker
that abused American children [1] somehow makes it about unprosecuted rich
people in everywhere but the USA.

> I suspect this is mostly moral posturing and virtue signalling

Indeed, though I refer to a different "this".

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Civil_cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Civil_cases)

~~~
throwaw-zxcvbn
If the policy is "don't accept money from American child sex traffickers that
abuse American children", then fine, return the Epstein money and ask for the
head of everyone that took money from him.

If the policy is "don't accept money from anyone abusing children (or at any
rate people under 18)", then I suggest that a lot more due diligence is
required.

~~~
calcifer
But that's just whataboutism. The article and the whole topic is about _this_
particular American child abuser and his American victims.

------
MrZongle2
If the author never had reason to suspect Epstein of anything unsavory.... why
is the apology required?

I can understand the need to make a statement, but seems to me that there was
no lapse in judgement exercised at the time, but rather an unfortunate
crossing-of-paths in retrospect.

~~~
FillardMillmore
The only reason he wouldn't have had anything unsavory to suspect of Epstein
would be that he lived under a rock. Epstein's "unsavory" predilections were
known for about five years (he was convicted in 2008) at the time that Ito
started associating with him.

------
joshypants
They probably take in money from so many questionable sources at MIT (and
similar institutions) that Epstein's prior conviction didn't raise any red
flags. Business as usual.

------
michele_f
"he was accused of" ... a truly peculiar choice of words for a person who
confessed, was sentenced, and in jail.

------
ryacko
>I am deeply sorry to the survivors,

This is very strange phrasing. I would certainly say victims.

Perhaps English isn’t his native tongue, but I doubt he wrote this himself or
alone. It seems to both eschew responsibility and subtly remind everyone to be
grateful it wasn’t worse.

------
ElCapitanMarkla
I don't understand the logic in returning the money? Why raise an equal amount
of money for charity while returning the original contribution? Wouldn't it be
better to also donate that original contribution to these charities?

------
univalent
And he's an Ethics professor? I am still fuming at having to pay for a
(required) Ethics class at business school. What a load of crock that was!
Come, learn how to be ethical in one credit spread over 4 Sunday seminars.

------
mootzville
What's the scariest thing about monsters?

They look like you and me.

------
ozzmotik
all i can think reading this is, "well the capitalist in me says that money is
money, it doesn't really matter where it comes from, all that matters is where
it goes to and what good it can do". i understand wanting to disavow oneself
of unsavory characters, that's just fairly common political and business
acumen. but, just accepting money from someone doesn't make you complicit in
their behaviors, nor does it mean you condone anything they have done. it
literally just means an transfer of finances occurred between two parties
(which may itself have other ulterior motives, but ultimately that has nothing
to do with how the money is distributed).

i honestly think in situations like this, when you get money from an awful
person, the only place that that money should go is somewhere where it can do
good in the world to offset the negative influence of the individual that
provided it. just sending it back is basically saying "i worry more about
maintaining my image than potentially helping people here and now when I can".
sure, the whole "im going to work to match all the donations" thing is a good
way to hedge your bets, but really, DRY should be a virtue in more than just
coding. reduplication of effort is a bad code smell, and I'm sure that
inefficiency extends to other domains in some analogous manner as well

------
erikpukinskis
Could someone explain why this is flagged? Maybe someone from HN? Is this
topic verboten?

------
setgree
Dude, just resign

------
ropiwqefjnpoa
IDK, people seem to have forgotten the idiom, "Talk is cheap"

------
onevu
You have to apologise for having been friends with and having received money
from someone you didn't know was a pederast?

Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta.

~~~
whowhatwhy
Didn't know? Epstein was convicted 5 years before they met.

~~~
onevu
So you look up everybody who you meet irl? I mean the way I'm reading this
blog post is that the author had no idea. Personally I don't believe it,
that's why I wouldn't accept the apology if I cared about this

~~~
okmokmz
>So you look up everybody who you meet irl?

No, but if I'm trying to get someone to give me money for a project, invite
them to my lab, and visit "several of their residences" I would definitely
look them up

------
JustSomeNobody
> That said, I take full responsibility for my error in judgment. I am deeply
> sorry to the survivors, to the Media Lab, and to the MIT community for
> bringing such a person into our network.

If you don't know that a person is bad, then you just don't know. People
didn't know Bundy was a serial killer, and we shouldn't fault them for not
knowing. You don't know what you don't know. That's not a fault. That's not
something you have to apologize for.

~~~
calvinmorrison
He pled guilty in 2008 for hiring child prostitutes. Joi mentions they met in
2013. If you don't do due dilligence, or even a cursory Google search, I
believe you might bear some moral culpability in being willingly associated
with a pedophile.

Frankly, nobody seems to have given lark about this guy until the new broke
again this time. I'm not sure if it was his connections with many obviously
famous people and the time peroid this took place, but before the MeToo
movement it seems like many famous people had things like this swept under the
rug or people looked the other way. I'm sure it's still happening, but
hopefully more light will be shed on bad people in positions of wealth and
power.

~~~
aflag
After he paid for his crime, doesn't he deserve a second chance?

~~~
jessaustin
This is part of the problem; at that time Epstein hadn't "paid for" his crimes
in any meaningful sense.

~~~
ndarwincorn
Rehabilitation/reintegration of sex offenders after they're released from
prison is a real discussion that we'll need to have as a society sooner than
later, but I think we should start with the folks on probation/parole listing
a walmart parking lot as their residential address because they can't find
housing, not a billionaire that gets a slap on the wrist.

------
john_brown_body
Either Ito failed to do even a minimal amount of due diligence on a person he
accepted millions of dollars from, or he did and then didn't care. Either way,
it's a catastrophic failure of judgment.

He ought to resign immediately. This is CYA apology. He's taking
responsibility in words only. It's disgraceful.

Resign.

------
bananabiscuit
Doing this seems completely unnecessary to me. Did Joi really make a mistake
that they could have realistically avoided?

To me, putting out this apology vaguely comes off as something like “virtue
signaling” or “fishing for sympathy”. I’m not saying it actually is either of
those things, I just don’t know the exact words to describe how I feel about
it.

Somebody please let me know if I am wrong and an apology is in fact
appropriate from this person.

~~~
rodgerd
> Did Joi really make a mistake that they could have realistically avoided?

Yeah, how could he have known a guy convicted 5 years before they met was a
high-profile abuser. I guess he could have asked lab founder, Minsky, about
what services he received from Epstein.

~~~
bananabiscuit
Didn’t notice that Jeffery was already convicted at that point.

If we don’t want to believe in rehabilitation (not that it did Jeffery any
good), then in that case, a resignation seems more appropriate than a few
words for an apology.

~~~
devinjflick
I think your point about rehabilitation and "paying one's debt to society" is
very valid. Unfortunately in Epstein's case the punishment hardly fit the
crime, ultimately he served 13 out of an 18 month sentence. "after 3 1⁄2
months allowed to leave the jail on "work release" for up to 12 hours a day, 6
days a week. This contravened the sheriff's own policies requiring a maximum
remaining sentence of 10 months and making sex offenders ineligible for the
privilege. He was allowed to come and go outside of specified release
hours"[0]

Ito visited Epstein several times at Epstein's residences, which all
apparently are plastered with enough "art" to make someone question if he
really was a "reformed" sex offender. It should be perfectly clear to everyone
that Ito understood two things: Epstein wasn't rehabilitated and Ito could
claim enough plausible deniability if his dirty laundry ever got aired. His
apology would be more meaningful if he actually donated to charities out of
his own pocket rather than promising to externally raise funds...

Check out the his Wikipedia entry on how lax that sentence was.

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Conviction_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Conviction_and_sentencing_\(2008%E2%80%932011\))

~~~
simplicio
Even with Epstein's light sentence, I'd be open to Ito saying he believed
Epstein had served his time and been rehabilitated.

But Ito doesn't even try to use that defense in his apology, because it would
make explicit that he knowingly took money from a sex-offender. So instead he
doesn't mention Epstein's conviction at all, uses some weasel language to make
it sound like he was unaware of it without explicitly saying so, and tries to
make it sound like he (Ito) was just a victim of circumstances.

It's a pretty impressive non-apology apology, since he makes a big show of
apologizing for something, but not the actual thing most people find troubling
about his behavior.

