Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I've read about the first half, which didn't mention that Epstein was already convicted for sex trafficking by the time he arrived at MIT in that story.

It didn't occur to me that he would be walking around freely doing deals if he had already been convicted.

I didn't have the information that he was let off the hook and there was also no indication I should google for something like that. What search term should I have used?




You read the first half of what exactly? From the subtitle of the article you responded to:

> New documents show that the M.I.T. Media Lab was aware of Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender, and that Epstein directed contributions to the lab far exceeding the amounts M.I.T. has publicly admitted.

What did you think "Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender" meant? Are you earnestly confused, or are you trying to get a rise out of me?


Sex offender and sex trafficker are in entirely different ballparks.


I read the first half of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/business/mit-media-lab-je...

That is the original article this while comment thread is attached to. It doesn't mention existing convictions in the first half. I didn't read the article the comment I replied to linked to.

I am not a robot. I can not simply recursively read the whole internet.

I was curious about the supposedly "damning paragraph", not about the whole article. The paragraph was quoted in the comment, so why should I read that article?

What exactly are you implying, anyway? What game do you assume I am playing?


Do everybody else in this discussion a favor and read this article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-univer...

You already responded to a comment about that article, so you owe it to others, if not yourself, to actually read it.


My interest here was in how people judge other people, not in Epstein's exploits specifically. I don't see what I would gain from reading that article.

I would be interested in what made the Media Lab guy do it.

I suppose many people are confronted with an opportunity for "unethical gains" some time in their lives. Maybe the Media Lab guy simply weighted things in his mind and thought it was worth it, to keep the research going, finance his researchers, or whatever.

I would be interested if it would be wrong in all cases. Like maybe (hopefully) Bill Gates is clean, and via shady Epstein MIT could get clean Gates money. OK or not OK?


> via shady Epstein MIT could get clean Gates money. OK or not OK?

Not okay. Why? To answer, we have to admit that "clean" is a word which carries an unhelpful metaphor here: bacterial contamination.

The problem isn't that the money is in some way contaminated. The problem is that the flow of money establishes a relationship with two effects:

1) Someone who owes or regularly gives you money can influence your decisions.

2) Having someone associate with you gives them social status, especially as a donor to a beneficial institution.

The metaphor for which people should reach for should be drawn from something like the song Molasses to Rum from the musical 1776: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeuaTpH6Ck0

So getting money from Gates via Epstein would still be bad because Epstein has the power to stop that flow of money. Gettin money from Epstein via a federal court order would not be bad because Epstein doesn't have the power to stop that.

--------

> I would be interested in what made the Media Lab guy do it.

I too would be interested in what made led him to do so. Because in order to receive donations, an organization like the media lab generally needs to be able to lean on its brand and its ability to invite companies to sponsor them. So we'll likely see that taking that money was long-term harmful financially to the Media Lab.


> I would be interested in what made the Media Lab guy do it.

Money .


I can see how this happened. Maybe Wikipedia the name next time? Associating with Epstein after 2008-2011 is a red line for me.


literally, 'epstein' would have been enough


I know about Epstein (superficially at least), I wanted to know what was damning about the quoted paragraph. Those are different things.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: