3 ms·
First amendment, for sure. I'm guessing this is about this, "The new law would require Airbnb and other short-term rental websites to post registration numbers
by swehner 10y ago
First amendment, for sure.
I'm guessing this is about this, "The new law would require Airbnb and other short-term rental websites to post registration numbers on listings or email the number and name of the host to the Office of Short-Term Rentals, The City’s agency tasked with enforcing the regulations." (From http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-poised-require-airbnb-list-registered-hosts-pay-fines/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-poised-require-airbnb-list-regi...)
So "their" "free speech rights" are "violated" because they have to post registration numbers.
- bunderbunder 10y agoIf they win this case, I'm starting a betting pool on how long it is until some corporation claims that reporting employee income to the IRS violates free speech.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ggreer 10y agoIt's nothing so silly. As a counterpoint to the Examiner's piece, please read Airbnb's post about the proposed law: https://www.airbnbaction.com/an-update-for-our-community-in-san-francisco/ https://www.airbnbaction.com/an-update-for-our-community-in-... Basically, the city wants to hold Airbnb responsible for user-generated content. The city also wants Airbnb to hand over users' personal information. Both the EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology think that these requirements violate federal law. (Though EPIC thinks otherwise.)
- ot 10y ago> Basically, the city wants to hold Airbnb responsible for user-generated content. Airbnb gets paid for the rentals, not for the listings. Also, they actively control the content (try putting an URL in the listing). Mistaking Airbnb for a publishing medium for user-generated content seems disingenuous at best.
- bduerst 10y agoI think it's a false dichotomy to say they're either/or - why cant't they be both? If they're actively controlling user generated content, then it's obvious they benefit from better content.
- CodeWriter23 10y agoThat's a specious argument and AirBNB is gonna get spanked hard on that one. Also, the CDA Safe Harbor never intended to shield service providers that receive direct monetary benefit from user content itself.
- ap3 10y agoDon't all sites derive a monetary benefit from the content - be it page view ads or valuation?
- CodeWriter23 10y agoThat's an indirect benefit.
- swehner 10y agoI read it. Quite wordy. Not much difference. To call ads "user-generated content" is a bit of a stretch, no? After all, "AirBNB" is much a party to the transaction.
- argonaut 10y agoRead the article more carefully. Airbnb's first amendment argument is not related to having to send info to regulators, it's related to something else entirely.