M.I.T. Media Lab concealed its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Re:M.I.T. Media Lab concealed its relationship with Jeffrey ... by tomp on Saturday September 07, 2019 @12:43PM (#20904875)

> Non-profits and banks are subject to money-laundering and anti-terrorism-financing laws that explicitly dictate "know your customer" (or donor in this case). You should never ever, deal with people that you're not comfortable being publicly associated with.

Huh? KYC only requires you to check that the money is legal (on both ends - incoming (money laundering) and outgoing (financing terrorism)). Nothing else.

Personally, I'd prefer to take money from someone like Epstein. I'm 99.99% certain I can direct the money to a better goal than he can (I'm only about 40% certain about Gates' money and about 2% certain about Musk's money).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:M.I.T. Media Lab concealed its relationship with Jeffrey ... by shuckles on Saturday September 07, 2019 @04:20PM (#20906243)

The criticism is that you are letting an Epstein character buy your organization's credibility and social capital, not that the financial capital isn't being put to its best and highest use.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:M.I.T. Media Lab concealed its relationship with Jeffrey ... by tomp on Saturday September 07, 2019 @06:56PM (#20907207)

Indeed, which is why you should keep his name off the donor list (and any buildings), and/or publicly disavow his (other) actions.

The problem isn’t “donating money”. The problem is “selling something” (be that influence and prestige in case of Epstein, or equity and future profits in case of Saudi money).

Rapists that donate are better than rapists that don’t donate. Disagreeing with that is a classical case of the ad hominem fallacy (“you’re bad therefore everything you say / do is bad”). In case of Epstein an additional problem was that he was a powerful rapist. But the proposition that his power came from donations is naive. Power and donations have a common cause - money.

[ Parent | on HN ]