(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.

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.

It wasn't exactly "hidden" though. Their interactions happened _after_ his plea dead for underage prostitution.

It sounds like Ito probably missed that news, which I think is what folks have a problem with — he should have done his research before accepting the money.

I think there is also a separate debate here about whether Ito should accept or reject money from a donor who he knows is a sex offender.

Edit: seems like people are assuming he did know about that past, which is unclear to me.

> seems like people are assuming he did know about that past, which is unclear to me.

According to Ethan Zuckerman, he "urged [Joi] not to meet with [Epstein]". Presumably Epstein's past was the reason for that urging.

http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2019/08/20/on-me-and-the-...

Its possible Ito didn't know initially, but its pretty implausible someone didn't tell him about it once he started introducing Epstein around the lab.

I think that's the problem with the apology, he doesn't actually say what he's apologizing for. It's pretty clear that he's apologizing for taking money for someone he new was a sex-offender, but he doesn't actually say it, nevermind apologize for it.

It seems conspicuous he doesn’t say he was unaware of the accusations.

He does say he was unaware of the evidence, and didn’t hear Epstein say anything about it.

A plea deal doesn't mean guilt or even evidence. It merely means that it was easier than fighting the charges, which could really mean anything.

Sure, but it means the "Oh my, I didn't know!" defense rings a little hollow...

I don't think so. You can't know just based on a plea deal, if you don't know why the deal was struck in the first place.

No, but again, it means you don't get to play the "I didn't know anything" card later.

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.

Indeed: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/25/bronx-120-report-mass-ga...