The Epstein scandal at MIT shows the moral bankruptcy of techno elites

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/07/jeffrey-epstein-mit-funding-tech-intellectuals

113 107 7 years ago

rowanG07716• 7 years ago

I really don't follow. What does Epsteins background have to do with the funding he was bringing to MIT? People aren't one dimensional. What Epstein did was disgusting, it has nothing to do with him funding some MIT research. MIT taking that funding is not in any way supporting what Epstein did.

tempsy3• 7 years ago

Think about what both sides get in this transaction. Wealthy elites are using universities for prestige and to wash their reputations of past transgressions. Universities, in turn, get easy money from the rich.

rowanG07716• 7 years ago

You think Epstein funding some research washes him of his past transgressions? I have never heard anyone say that. Nor do I think we should stop people that have done wrong from doing right afterwards because it could "wash their reputations from past transgressions". We have something called the law that should bring justice to people.

nafey• 7 years ago

Well that is probably naive view of the matter. People with money cultivate such relationships to influence the discourse ever so slightly in their favor. Please look up Anand Giridharadas who had written quite extensively on this.

rowanG07716• 7 years ago

That is more of a problem of individuals with large amounts of money having too much power then anything else.

bb8816• 7 years ago

What's ironic, is that's the same mentality that Joichi Ito had to resign for.

Money that comes from illegal or immoral activity colors it. You may think it's the same money, but the source of the money is important for institutions that have moral and ethical standards.

davrosthedalek4• 7 years ago

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

anigbrowl7• 7 years ago

Here is what Epstein's background had to do with it: there's good reason to think that much of his wealth came from blackmailing other people that he encountered or lured into the circles of organized sexual abuse, and that this fact was widely known. That's why Ito at the MIT media lab wrote to his colleagues that epstein's donations should be listed as 'anonymous' to minimize the scrutiny thereof.

If you are having difficulty understanding this issue then you are either immature or socially illiterate. You might as well ask what harm a cancer on one of your organs is since it hasn't metastasized yet.

rowanG07716• 7 years ago

The problem was Ito accepting donations from a black listed person. Nothing more nothing less. Ito wasn't in the position to make that call.

notus• 7 years ago

From what I've read the first criminal case against him was in 2005 and the dinner with the MIT scientists was in 1999. The donations to Harvard were in 2003. I don't see the value in pointing the finger here.

peter_l_downs• 7 years ago

Read some more https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-univer...

ve55• 7 years ago

Kind of weird how they discuss a single case and then literally write that one should "refuse the money of tech billionaires".

Sounds like an absurd overreaction. Worth checking out https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...

natalyarostova• 7 years ago

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

burnstek• 7 years ago

If you have a problem with MIT taking Epstein's money, then you have a problem with money in general. We all take money in some fashion from disgusting, psychotic, and evil people on a regular basis. Particularly so when we're on social security, medicare, or another social program.

It's like the people who are against hunting, but who are happy to eat store bought meat.

bb8816• 7 years ago

So taxes are mandatory. They don't change the reputation of a person.

Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout, when in fact deep down he's profiting on human misery.

rowanG07716• 7 years ago

How do they make a sleazeball look like a boy scout?

davrosthedalek4• 7 years ago

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

lone_haxx0r3• 7 years ago

Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout

Well, that's not the sleazeball's or the charity's problem. If you and other people don't think he's a "boy scout" then he won't be seen as one. If you do, he will.

howeyc2• 7 years ago

I have to agree. This is getting ridiculous. Taking money from an individual does not mean you have administered absolution.

BurningFrog• 7 years ago

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

darawk4• 7 years ago

It's clear at this point that traditional journalists are opposed to tech because of what it's done to their profession. I don't blame them for being upset, but the way it's manifesting here is not good for anyone.

tomjakubowski2• 7 years ago

morozov is more like an academic than a journalist

TheOtherHobbes• 7 years ago

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

pessimizer• 7 years ago

"This single event is additional information that I'm pointing out because it reinforces points I've made frequently in the past, while pointing out different events."

That's the definition of empirical argumentation.

deogeo2• 7 years ago

Now try applying it to other groups of people.

whatshisface• 7 years ago

It's still missing a crucial ingredient: you have to demonstrate that your list of events is an unbiased sampling of all relevant events, as opposed to a cherry-picked list of useful events. For example, it would not be an "empirical argument" to convince everybody that a coin was unfair by publishing an article whenever it came up heads. An example isn't evidence, and a list of examples aren't evidence. Evidence is when you have a list of examples along with the other necessary information (which can take many forms, for example I wouldn't mind seeing a list of examples from a known-non-morally-bankrupt control group).

anigbrowl7• 7 years ago

That is a misrepresentation of the article's argument.

sytelus• 7 years ago

For me, this event was insightful about the secret world of intellectual elites. We often think of these elites like Steven Pinker and Marvin Minsky working away in their damp offices in university campus and live sort of understated idealistic lifestyles. Instead, it appears there is this billionaire circuit which is equivalent of kings in modern days. They have their courts for intellectual kicks and show offs. They shuttle around these elites in private jets, have them vacation on private islands, put them on boards of companies, fund their ventures and so on. These intellectual elites are by no measure idealistic folks with idealistic middle class academic lifestyles but rather they are very rich and powerful with strong connection to billionaire circuit. It also appears that these folks have no qualms against their relationship with a person with severe ethical or moral issues as long as that person is billionaire. Probably all this is not very surprising and still just a sample size of one but it seems to be an interesting window on that world.

lone_haxx0r3• 7 years ago

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

jdkee• 7 years ago

Money is the root of all evil.

howeyc2• 7 years ago

New charity donation questionnaire for prospective donors...

Have you:

* Engaged in any activities the general public would find reprehensible?

* Plan on doing so in the future?

Are you:

* Generally disliked by the general public?

* Possibly going to be targeted by public outrage at some point?

---

If you answered yes to any of the above, we regret to inform you that your charitable donation cannot be accepted.

andybak2• 7 years ago

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

nitwit0052• 7 years ago

Just seems to be using this event to rant about stuff they were already upset about. The first name mentioned is Marc Zuckerburg, who has nothing to do with the actual scandal.

This is hardly the first charity scandal related to accepting donations from questionable donors. The issue predates electricity, let alone modern tech companies.

DoctorOetker2• 7 years ago

I am still genuinely trying to understand what happened.

In your interpretation:

1) What is the motivation of the donor (Epstein)?

2) What is the motivation of the acceptor (Ito)?

If your answer is

1) Prestige

2) Money

Then that does not work: they can not reach a mutual understanding about whether Epstein is allowed tell the world he donates to the Media Lab, which can be seen by splitting up in cases:

1) if the mutual understanding is that Epstein is allowed to tell the world he donates to Media Lab : in this case Ito's motive evaporates, because he was fully aware and scared shitless of Epstein's name getting associated with the Media Lab.

2) if the mutual understanding is that Epstein can not tell the world he donates to Media Lab : in this case Epstein's motive evaporates, since it doesn't raise his prestige.

So all the authors of these articles are systematically individually either unintentionally overseeing the inconsistency, or intentionally obscuring a deeper fact.

Let's hypothesize it's for the tax deductions for the root donors (like Bill Gates etc.) instead: this too doesn't make sense, if you find a scheme for tax deductions etc by donating, why not donate directly? if for some reason the tax scheme can only work with an intermediary... why on earth select a radioactive person like Epstein?

So the tax evasion angle is misdirecting chaff too...

Consider that many of the unrecognized victim(s) of Epstein (and the buyers of his underage prostitution ring) are now adult. Consider the typical promises that were made to these girls (money, and future prospects). Many of these girls are adult women today, possibly studying, PhD studying or working. If some of the girls insist on studying some place, Epstein needs to pipe hush money, scholarship, salaries into the faculties and departments.

My interpretation is that it is hush money.

Bill Gates is not shy, he openly donates to many causes. He wrote books etc...

Before this scandal there was nothing controversial about the Media Lab, so why would he donate anonymously?

Even if he insisted to donate anonymously, why donate through Epstein? Bill Gates should be smarter than that, why are we holding Ito to a higher standard than Gates? If Ito & Co were handling the connection with Epstein with radioactive precaution, why didn't Bill Gates geiger counter crackle beyond repair?

And why on earth would Gates pay off someone else's hush money?

Suppose Gates paid hush money (or was blackmailed by) Epstein for services rendered (say in a somewhat distant past) to forward the hush money to the victim(s) at Media Lab.

That could also explain why Gates would go through Epstein: if he paid the Media Lab directly, the shorter connection towards the victim(s) might be construed as a financial acknowledgement of his involvement with the victim.

It also explains why he would go through Epstein as opposed to involving a clean person: the clean new intermediary between the Media Lab and Gates would be an extra point of failure who could leak the secret.

While it might be relatively easy for the "already-did-his-time" Epstein to find a lab or department head, and convince him with his crocodile tears to cooperate in a cloak of charity to pipe the "compensations" ( hush money, work position salary for the victim ) through the department head.

Instead we have Big Media suddenly (and suspicously) spinning stories and redirecting attention to either academic vaporware like growboxes from the Media Lab, or "billionaire circuits" naturally attracting male and female "deplorables". (which is just slutshaming all over again!)

nitwit0052• 7 years ago

I assume you responded to the wrong thread?

peteforde• 7 years ago

This is, in my opinion, a stunningly poor reaction to the Epstein/Media Lab trash fire. You can believe, as I do, that Epstein was a monster and Joi fucked up in the worst possible way and also retain enough independent thought to see this article for what it is: an opportunistic rant by an angry person who imagines themselves the lone voice of reason against a vast conspiracy that includes everyone from wealthy Greek aristocrats (lol) to Bill Gates to Timothy Leary.

Please.

There's a lot to be frustrated by in the culture and cult of tech, but the irony of Morozov posting this op-ed on a site that is usually proudly powered by a mountain of open source created by the sorts of smart kids that spend time researching at the MIT Media Lab is galling.

navs• 7 years ago

This is an angry piece.

The Epstein case doesn't surprise me. Most people with money are morally reprehensible or have dealt with morally reprehensible people.

What I can't understand is where TED talks play into this? Are they evil by proxy?

coldtea2• 7 years ago

Why techno elites?

All elites (political, financial, tech, medicine, etc) are morally bankrupt.

They're like regular people, but with power and money, both known corruptors, reduced empathy [1], and all the motivations to increase their reach. And they were probably quite psycho which helped them get at the elite level to begin with [2]...

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...

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

mistermann• 7 years ago

Techno elites often project an air of moral superiority where others are mostly silent would be my guess.

andybak2• 7 years ago

Maybe the contradiction is thus:

1. We expect people higher up the status ladder to behave better than most people.

2. Getting higher up the status ladder probably means you are statistically likely to be "worse" than most people by virtue of the traits it requires to get there.

(Please excuse the "better/worse" shorthand but you all know what I mean)

RandomInteger4• 7 years ago

Seems absurd to ban bad people from giving their money to good causes. Bad people with money will still have money, whether you shun them or not.

If you take this to it's logical extreme, you only allow bad people to give money to bad causes; especially so because the folks making these determinations allow no room for neutral causes.

lpolovets• 7 years ago

I thought the article, and especially the headline, were overgeneralizing and weak. I looked up the author, and he has such a strong anti-tech bias. His last 4 posts (from https://www.theguardian.com/profile/evgeny-morozov):

- The Epstein scandal at MIT shows the moral bankruptcy of techno elites

- Facebook's plan to break the global financial system

- It's not enough to break up Big Tech. We need to imagine a better alternative

- The left needs to get radical on big tech – moderate solutions won't cut it

galaxyLogic2• 7 years ago

Donating money to charitable causes is just a way to do good.

When somebody does something good we shouldn't say "That must not be allowed because he is only trying to make himself look good".

Rather than try to prevent bad people from doing good things, we should try to do good things ourselves.

Condemning somebody else is a way to make yourself look good. How? When you say that someone else is bad you are implicitly claiming that YOU are not (that) bad. And you are just spending energy (if not money) to prop up your reputation. That is in fact kinda unethical because you are in fact doing nothing good to anybody else than yourself, just polishing your halo, by pointing out how bad some other people are.

reifwithfraud• 7 years ago

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!

The Epstein scandal at MIT shows the moral bankruptcy of techno elites

Related Stories