The dictionary definition clearly has no requirement that it be a mutually defined membership, just a common group of people. You are saying "because the dicti

The dictionary definition clearly has no requirement that it be a mutually defined membership, just a common group of people. You are saying "because the dictionary does not say one entity can control who is a member, it's not allowed". But the dictionary definition neither requires nor disallows a single entity from defining membership, and definitions don't fall into the "that which is not referenced is not permitted" category of things. In fact, it's the opposite. If you meet at least the minimum requirements of some definition, you are that thing. You may also be other things that are more specific. So they are completely within the dictionary definition of a community. They are a group of people with a common characteristic (they are airbnb hosts) scattered through a larger society. Whether this is defined by airbnb or not doesn't matter. Claiming anything else is simply ridiculous to me. Do you also believe the daughters of the american revolution are not a community, because the daughters of the american revolution defines who is part of their membership? Is hacker news not a community because contributing requires accounts HN reserves the right to remove accounts at any time (thus controlling participation)? I'm not sure why you are not just willing to admit you are being silly.