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.<p>Please.<p>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.
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.<p>This is hardly the first charity scandal related to accepting donations from questionable donors. The issue predates electricity, let alone modern tech companies.
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.
Why techno elites?<p>All elites (political, financial, tech, medicine, etc) are morally bankrupt.<p>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]...<p>[1] <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/" rel="nofollow">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Secrets-How-Rich-Got/dp/031637895X" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Secrets-How-Rich-Got/dp/031637...</a>
I thought the article, and especially the headline, were overgeneralizing and weak. I looked up the author, and he has <i>such</i> a strong anti-tech bias. His last 4 posts (from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/evgeny-morozov" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/profile/evgeny-morozov</a>):<p>- The Epstein scandal at MIT shows the moral bankruptcy of techno elites<p>- Facebook's plan to break the global financial system<p>- It's not enough to break up Big Tech. We need to imagine a better alternative<p>- The left needs to get radical on big tech – moderate solutions won't cut it
Donating money to charitable causes is just a way to do good.<p>When somebody does something good we shouldn't say "That must not be allowed because he is only trying to make himself look good".<p>Rather than try to prevent bad people from doing good things, we should try to do good things ourselves.<p>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.
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!
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.<p>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.
New charity donation questionnaire for prospective donors...<p>Have you:<p>* Engaged in any activities the general public would find reprehensible?<p>* Plan on doing so in the future?<p>Are you:<p>* Generally disliked by the general public?<p>* Possibly going to be targeted by public outrage at some point?<p>---<p>If you answered yes to any of the above, we regret to inform you that your charitable donation cannot be accepted.
This is an angry piece.<p>The Epstein case doesn't surprise me. Most people with money are morally reprehensible or have dealt with morally reprehensible people.<p>What I can't understand is where TED talks play into this? Are they evil by proxy?
Kind of weird how they discuss a single case and then literally write that one should "refuse the money of tech billionaires".<p>Sounds like an absurd overreaction. Worth checking out <a href="https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/" rel="nofollow">https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...</a>
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.
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.<p>It's like the people who are against hunting, but who are happy to eat store bought meat.