[algaeontoast]

Nobody should be trying to cover for the Media Lab in any way or form. If you're a professional and you take money in this way you are complicit, period.

An article claiming Epstein was a victim because pedophiles and rapists are "victims" would have been less vapid than what Vox focuses on in this article.

[nosseo]

Hey! I'm the article author, and I didn't write about what the Media Lab was thinking to give them "cover". As I put it in the article, the Media Lab's actions were so horrific that it brings into question the whole philosophy behind anonymous donations. So why take a close look at their justifications? Well, a couple reasons. Firstly, I think it's interesting when smart people argue themselves into incredibly bad decisions that anyone could've warned them against. It's an easy failure mode to fall into, and looking in gruesome detail at some cases where other people fell into it has taught me a lot about how these failures happen.

Secondly, I think that condemnation hits harder when it's the result of sincere engagement with someone's justifications. Yep, I listened to you when you said why you did it. And you were wrong. It's not always worth taking that step, of course, but in a big case like this, I think it is.

[wrs]

To me the danger sign is that, if you’re doing anonymous donations properly, it would be impossible to solicit them. I mean, you wouldn’t know who to talk to! If the donor visits the institution, it’s just some random person with no reason for special treatment.

If there was an arms-length “anonymous fund” that people could donate to without even the development department knowing who they are, that would be the only way to have truly anonymous donations. And then I think the moral argument would make perfect sense.

[wyck]

I think the point for this particular case, which you did allude to, is that there was nothing anonymous about the relationship. Everyone knew about it, some of them implicated directly in the actual court case (Minsky). This is more about a completely corrupt and toxic culture at Media Lab. It would have been more interesting to look deeper into Joi Ito for example and the posturing of several key players when exposed, than wax poetic about the blanket of anonymity.

[bitL]

How do you know that culture inside Media Lab was "completely corrupt and toxic"? From my experience, it was (is?) a super cool place and most researchers didn't have any clue what was going on with the funding. I bet there are many universities where revolts would happen if true donors and their actions were revealed. You even have whole famous universities named after robber barons.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

> a super cool place and most researchers didn't have any clue what was going on with the funding.

I don't know. I think witnessing the lab director giving tours to an old man accompanied by very young foreign women who raise suspicions that they might be victims of human trafficking, should make people at least consider that there is something shady going on with the funding.

[ineedasername]

Apparently some people raise objections and were ignored, and some staff were convince of the possibility Epstein brought trafficked women with him when he visited. It's not like those people wouldn't talk to others, their friends there, etc., the frustration and disappointment simmering beneath the surface. Sure, not everyone may have felt it, but it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

[cortesoft]

Did you read the same article I did? I feel like the article said the opposite of what you are saying it did... the article pretty strongly says that Media Lab was in the wrong and the argument that the donations were anonymous and therefore ok were completely wrong.