"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
"
I think a lot of people became aware of Epstein in 2011 when Charlie Brooker (Black Mirror creator) did this piece on Prince Andrew - https://youtu.be/yPyn7mu375I
I remember it going viral at the time, and since then a casual Google would have thrown it up pretty highly.
Are you accusing the author of lying, or of being irresponsible for not having known about his criminal background? Either seems fairly presumptuous.
Edit: Changed "unrealistic" to "presumptuous". I certainly think it's realistic that this person I've never heard of may be immoral or irresponsible, but what I don't understand is making that accusation based only on the correlation to the simple fact of his criminal background.
A fair number of people who follow politics avidly would have known that Epstein was radioactive even before his conviction. However, that's a tiny number of people. Many more people who follow politics would have been aware after that conviction, but that's still a very small number of people. Now, however, everyone knows.
One: I don't keep track of criminal convictions of every person I interact with. I'm not going to investigate criminal convictions until I'm at the point where money is likely to start changing hands. It's called due diligence, and it occurs late in the game, not early.
Two: the justice system is supposed to work such that when you are done with it your debt to society is paid. The fact that Epstein got off so lightly, repeatedly, is the fundamental problem. An individual should not have to look up the criminal convictions of every person they interact with.
I wouldn't have blacklisted the person or the transaction. Why are you and the author suggesting these are related things to weigh?
If they are not on the OFAC list, and we aren't involved in an illegal transaction, then what is the issue? I am looking for complete, articulate sentences here. I honestly don't know the other perspective and haven't been exposed to an articulate reason to attempt to financially isolate capital.
If optics of a particular name actually were of concern due to records and disclosures, I would say just use a lawyer or new entity in specific jurisdictions, or lawyer+entity. This is something I would recommend for everyone if they can afford it, just to avoid grifters that realize you might have money and are willing to move it around. And yes, this also prevents other scrutiny, and avoids anyone having to make the decisions I am trying to understand.
Do you or do you not have a cause to support? Do you or do you not have a supporter? Simple questions with simple answers.
Can someone here articulate why they would blacklist transactions or persons that are not blacklisted by the state? Even if Epstein was actually in prison he could direct funds to causes he wanted to support. Convictions have nothing to do with capital controls. Why are you trying to control capital?
People plead guilty all the time. It's a byproduct of the US justice system. It doesn't mean that there was any evidence against them, much less indisputable evidence.
People willfully ignore those details when money is on the line. There's a good chance he genuinely didn't know because he genuinely didn't bother to research his investors.
Plenty of SV investors looked the other way when Milner flooded the community with Kremlin-connected money, including PG (see his comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143604 from 2011)
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.
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.
Ignorance isn't usually a defense, but it seems difficult to blame someone in these kinds of cases. If my former college roommate is a nazi, that doesn't seem to reflect on me, even if we sometimes got donuts together.
Obviously this isn't the case when our theoretical Nazi is going around throwing up salutes and goose-stepping, but certainly no human can be judged for not being omniscient?
It's called due diligence. The guy had a conviction on the record for underage prostitution. This isn't mom and pop's corner gas station, this is MIT, a well respected institution. You don't get "well I had no idea this man who has a public criminal record had a bad history" when MIT is running background checks on janitors that wouldn't get through with something like that on their record.
The world needs more accountability, not less, especially amongst those in power. Patting this guy on the back for posting an apology on the internet is effectively approving of the status quo that got us here. MIT can and should do better.
Sorry, but not sorry: why is it important that someone was associating with a child molester, if they never experienced or was witness to, or participated in, the said crime, has an opinion? Has to defend themselves, for association?
A conclusion one can reach, upon careful inspection: molesters live among us. You will not always recognise them. Be fearful, always, of the ones you think you can trust - for their altitude, for their contribution, for their gratitude.
Essentially, this is white terrorism.
Epstein was a heinous, now famous, human being. There are a lot more of them out there.
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.
(1) There is a pretty big difference between shaking hands with someone and allowing someone to tie their financial stake in with yours via a quarter million dollars in investment money.
(2) The idea that anyone with this large of an involvement with Epstein was unaware that he had been convicted in 2008 strains one's credulity, to say the least. If at any point after Ito met Epstein, he had casually googled Epstein's name, he would have been inundated with information about his conviction. Not to mention that in his resignation letter, Ethan Zuckerman explicitly mentions that he told Ito not to meet with Epstein back in 2014. (http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-...)
Raising money from, coinvesting with and visiting the multiple homes of someone isn't "impersonal business transactions". It's a deep relationship with someone who was already convicted of raping a child.
I agree. And I can’t imagine many people would have known about the investments if he had not written this apology. I guess the author felt an inordinate amount of guilt about it all and needed to get it off his shoulders.
It’s one thing to look through Epstein’s close social contacts and history of close business partners for people who may have known or engaged in illegal activity with him. This doesn’t meet those criteria, IMO.
I know the following concept is absolutely foreign to most people in tech, who would gladly take seed funding from Unit 751, but if you're accepting millions of dollars in donations and investments you actually do have a basic moral responsibility to do at least a minimal level of due diligence, lest you end up helping to whitewash the reputation of a known child sex trafficker.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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."
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?
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":
Joi Ito associated with Epstein (personally and financially) 5 years after Epstein had been convicted as a pedophile. The assertion people are making here is that he either didn't do his due diligence and in this particular instance, said lack of due diligence reflects extremely poorly on him or...he knew (probably likely) about Epstein's history and did business with him anyway (which also reflects extremely poorly on him) -- as the saying goes "money talks".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
[+] [-] whowhatwhy|6 years ago|reply
"
" On June 30, 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge (one of two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18 "
[+] [-] jmkni|6 years ago|reply
I remember it going viral at the time, and since then a casual Google would have thrown it up pretty highly.
[+] [-] sithlord|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] happytoexplain|6 years ago|reply
Edit: Changed "unrealistic" to "presumptuous". I certainly think it's realistic that this person I've never heard of may be immoral or irresponsible, but what I don't understand is making that accusation based only on the correlation to the simple fact of his criminal background.
[+] [-] cryptonector|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsder|6 years ago|reply
Two: the justice system is supposed to work such that when you are done with it your debt to society is paid. The fact that Epstein got off so lightly, repeatedly, is the fundamental problem. An individual should not have to look up the criminal convictions of every person they interact with.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] alexryan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rolltiide|6 years ago|reply
If they are not on the OFAC list, and we aren't involved in an illegal transaction, then what is the issue? I am looking for complete, articulate sentences here. I honestly don't know the other perspective and haven't been exposed to an articulate reason to attempt to financially isolate capital.
If optics of a particular name actually were of concern due to records and disclosures, I would say just use a lawyer or new entity in specific jurisdictions, or lawyer+entity. This is something I would recommend for everyone if they can afford it, just to avoid grifters that realize you might have money and are willing to move it around. And yes, this also prevents other scrutiny, and avoids anyone having to make the decisions I am trying to understand.
Do you or do you not have a cause to support? Do you or do you not have a supporter? Simple questions with simple answers.
Can someone here articulate why they would blacklist transactions or persons that are not blacklisted by the state? Even if Epstein was actually in prison he could direct funds to causes he wanted to support. Convictions have nothing to do with capital controls. Why are you trying to control capital?
[+] [-] jasonlotito|6 years ago|reply
Edit: I hate meta comments, but getting downvoted for pointing out lies is tiring. I've read the apology. I'm right.
[+] [-] stronglikedan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TAForObvReasons|6 years ago|reply
Plenty of SV investors looked the other way when Milner flooded the community with Kremlin-connected money, including PG (see his comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143604 from 2011)
[+] [-] rhombocombus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madrox|6 years ago|reply
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... is a write-up of the podcast interview
[+] [-] vorpalhex|6 years ago|reply
Obviously this isn't the case when our theoretical Nazi is going around throwing up salutes and goose-stepping, but certainly no human can be judged for not being omniscient?
[+] [-] zajd|6 years ago|reply
The world needs more accountability, not less, especially amongst those in power. Patting this guy on the back for posting an apology on the internet is effectively approving of the status quo that got us here. MIT can and should do better.
[+] [-] fit2rule|6 years ago|reply
This is as good as agit-prop as any.
Sorry, but not sorry: why is it important that someone was associating with a child molester, if they never experienced or was witness to, or participated in, the said crime, has an opinion? Has to defend themselves, for association?
A conclusion one can reach, upon careful inspection: molesters live among us. You will not always recognise them. Be fearful, always, of the ones you think you can trust - for their altitude, for their contribution, for their gratitude.
Essentially, this is white terrorism.
Epstein was a heinous, now famous, human being. There are a lot more of them out there.
[+] [-] stickfigure|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] eindiran|6 years ago|reply
(2) The idea that anyone with this large of an involvement with Epstein was unaware that he had been convicted in 2008 strains one's credulity, to say the least. If at any point after Ito met Epstein, he had casually googled Epstein's name, he would have been inundated with information about his conviction. Not to mention that in his resignation letter, Ethan Zuckerman explicitly mentions that he told Ito not to meet with Epstein back in 2014. (http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-...)
[+] [-] msghacq|6 years ago|reply
You should read Ethan Zuckerman's resignation post as it offers much more information: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-...
Ito was warned against getting involved with Epstein and he ignored those warnings.
[+] [-] JshWright|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vonseel|6 years ago|reply
It’s one thing to look through Epstein’s close social contacts and history of close business partners for people who may have known or engaged in illegal activity with him. This doesn’t meet those criteria, IMO.
[+] [-] john_brown_body|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CPLX|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cdibona|6 years ago|reply
http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-...
[+] [-] stochastic_monk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thwythwy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tareqak|6 years ago|reply
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/
> The person making the gift is called the donor and the person receiving the gift is called the donee.
[+] [-] whamlastxmas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mLuby|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/
[+] [-] pmdulaney|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soheil|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] news_to_me|6 years ago|reply
What exactly did Ito do wrong here? It sounds like he had no knowledge of Epstein's misdeeds while they were associates.
[+] [-] msghacq|6 years ago|reply
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-...
There's no way Ito didn't know about this, it would come up with a simple Google search. Investors do diligence.
[+] [-] FillardMillmore|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strangeloops85|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaw-zxcvbn|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] MrZongle2|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshypants|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michele_f|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryacko|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] univalent|6 years ago|reply