19 ms·

I don't know if this is really a tractable problem. At the end of the day, either airbnb lets hosts decide who stays or doesn't. If they don't let hosts decide

by dilap 10y ago

I don't know if this is really a tractable problem. At the end of the day, either airbnb lets hosts decide who stays or doesn't. If they don't let hosts decide, they'll likely lose a ton of hosts, since having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. If they do, then they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever.

apalmer 10y ago
I think more or less this is where it is going to have to end up. Its probably bad PR for AirBnB but fundamentally, there is a reason that their is a 'high' barrier to entry for the hospitality business...
brightball 10y ago
That was my thought here as well. It's one thing to have very public businesses with anti-discrimination rules, but something like Air BnB where people have to decide in most cases who they are going to let into their homes is a much more complicated problem. We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. What if a host wanted to turn away somebody who was an avid white supremacist? This isn't the same thing as giving somebody a key to a hotel room. EDIT: Worth pointing to another comment that cites the law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577 > Those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to hosts' private homes or bedrooms.[1] Paraphrase of law: "All persons shall be entitled ..., and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,..., without discrimination ... other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"
- guelo 10y ago
  > We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. Freedom is a relative thing. Here we have AirBnB's freedom to not want racist hosts vs white supremacist's freedom to use AirBnB. The only freedom the ideal of USA is supposed to grant you is freedom from too much government meddling.
  - vkou 10y ago
    > The only freedom the ideal of USA is supposed to grant you is freedom from too much government meddling. Really? Which amendment is that one? There are a few prominent restrictions on particular kinds of government meddling in the US. This by no means generalizes to the rest of it.
    - guelo 10y ago
      That's why I said 'ideal', it's not true in practice, but I was responding to the comment about the hypothetical "point of the US".
      - brightball 10y ago
        What I meant by that was individual liberty and the ability to make your own choices and decisions. Government meddling in that in this case is forcing people to do something they are uncomfortable with simply because they paid money while simultaneously running the risk of legal action if at any point you want to abort the transaction. The most basic example is akin to forcing somebody to sign a contract without knowing who they are signing it with.
        vkou 10y ago
        We've tried allowing this kind of thing, and what we got was redlining, "No colored allowed" and "Dogs and Irish keep off the grass." If complying with anti-discrimination law is a problem for you, you should generally not be in this line of business.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Redlining is an explicit government policy, started by the HOLC (a government sponsored corporation created by FDR as part of the New Deal). Here's one of their maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Owners%27_Loan_Corporation_Philadelphia_redlining_map.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Own... Separating whites from colored was also explicit government policy. It was called Jim Crow. We never tried "this kind of thing". http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepage.htm http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa... The law was actually far more intrusive back then than it is today. For example, you might be shocked to discover that Jim Crow laws actually mandated discrimination in sexual relationships! The closest we've come to trying this kind of thing is the present day, where at least sexual relationships have been deregulated. (This one is a biggie for me, I discriminate pretty strongly against white women and think the government should not restrict my freedom in that way.)
- runako 10y ago
  > very public businesses One might argue that posting pictures of the interior of a residence, advertising it for rent by the night, and posting a price for such privilege is what makes a hotel a "very public business." (It's also why regulations apply to hotels.) One might also wonder that if these properties make a hotel or B&B a public business, what's different about AirBnB rentals? Sure enough, back in 1964 the US passed a law that defines (many/most) AirBnB rentals as places of "public accommodation": "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. " If the lessor isn't living there, it's a public lodging. (Also, it's not the lessor's "home" by virtue of the lessor not living there.)
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    AirBNB has already established that they consider themselves very "special". Most other activities happening in your home, including renting out a room to a housemate, are not subject to discrimination laws. If you don't want a particular type of person in your home, you should have that right, whether that's because you have a safety or other concern, or because you are a racist asshole. If AirBNB wants to pretend it's a public accommodation now because discrimination affects its brand, tough. Maybe they should exert full control by building hotels in commercial districts.
    - dajohnson89 10y ago
      Agreed completely. This is why shared home adverts are exempt from FHA regulations.
      - mikestew 10y ago
        This is not true. Rather than dig through the FHA for you, Craigslist's interpretation is easier to reference: https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA
- mcshicks 10y ago
  Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in housing. The law seems perfectly clear to me. As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful-- (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
  - exelius 10y ago
    I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them. It's a typical problem of the "sharing" economy. I'm not sure the courts will agree with them, but their strategy has been similar to Uber's in that they come in, break the law (or at the very least operate in a legal grey area), then get so big that traditional regulatory systems have no way to deal with them.
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      I could agree with this. But, since the government will have to do all this inspection, I guess you agree that they will have to levy a tax on AirBnB to pay for it?
      - exelius 10y ago
        I doubt Airbnb would agree with that -- since it would make their rentals much less attractive when compared to hotels (which have taxes around 15-20% in most big cities).
        cmurf 10y ago
        Ok then their model succeeds mainly on the basis that it's freeloading by being an exception to rules that apply to hotels. They're cheaper because they're not doing pretty much any of the things hotels are required to do, not just limited to taxes, but including the various health inspection regimes that states require for places of public accommodation including hotels. So yeah, you don't have to clean as well as a hotel if you don't want, you don't have to pay the taxes as a hotel or even a regular long term rental unit if you can get away with it (thinking IRS will consider a portion of your house converted into business property and thus subject to business property gains tax when you sell the house, but not limited to this), you don't have to follow or even give notice that you don't follow ADA, on and on, because AirBnB doesn't verify any of this and it's claimed it's not their responsibility to do so; but they also don't support even a licensing program by municipalities and rental history reporting so that these municipalities could do their own verifications. Basically if you even the playing field across the board between an AirBnB and hotel, you end up with something like an actual Bed & Breakfast (although typically without breakfast but often with access to a kitchen). All things actually being equal, even price per square foot, I'd probably pick an AirBnB, but I actively avoid it whenever possible because I think their success mainly constitutes free loading (and enabling it by property owners)
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. Arguably, the central point of the US was exactly to prevent people in positions of relative power from making certain decisions that others with less individual power disagreed with; perhaps the central debate between the modern left and modern right in the US is whether that generalizes from the formal political positions of relative power that were salient at the time of founding to economic positions of relative power (the position of the modern left) or whether the restrictions should be limited to only the domain of formal political power and that the exercise of economic power should be unconstrained (the position of the modern right.)
  - weberc2 10y ago
    Are you making a point about AirBnB specifically or the U.S. generally? In case of the former, I can't tell which party (the renter or the tenant) is supposed to be in the position of relative power.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Yes, they're going to lose hosts over this. In fact, if they don't, that's evidence that they're not serious about it. A lot of people hosting through Airbnb shouldn't be.
  - wyager 10y ago
    "If you have personal preferences about whom you let live in your home that don't align with mine, you shouldn't be allowed to have anyone in your home at all!"
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Yes, that is generally the principle involved with business transactions like these. We tried it the other way, and all the black people ended up cordoned into North Lawndale. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case... As a society, we decided to amend the social contract to remedy this. You can choose who to have in your house based on any criteria you like. You cannot choose who to rent to on the same terms.
      - wyager 10y ago
        >we decided to amend the social contract to remedy this Where in the social contract is this clause? I can't find it. "It's in the social contract" is the ultimate weasel appeal. You're citing the authority of an imaginary document that, miraculously, contains whatever arbitrary moral edicts the person who invokes it happens to agree with. Transactions should be voluntary. People should not be forced to do business against their will. Whoever "we" is in your post, I'm not part of it, because I have a moral objection to slavery (I.e. Involuntary labor). Not that what AirBNB is doing constitutes involuntary labor; they're a private business and can set whatever terms they want for using their platform, in accordance with the principles I've outlined. I'm just saying that forcing homeowners to take in people they don't want to is sub-optimal and alienating for homeowners.
        10y ago
- hackuser 10y ago
  > prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. I'd stay away from these issues on HN unless we really have something valuable and new to add. I'll just say that there's another side to this and many strongly disagree with this notion. To sum it up and just put both sides out there (hopefully not starting a debate), people facing widespread discrimination, unable to get jobs, housing, health care, and even dinner and hotel rooms are not free, but oppressed. Also, it's long been part of US history, it's not a new trend. Anti-discrimination laws are one example.
  - Chronic9q 10y ago
    It's my home and I do what I want. If you're black and I don't like you, I have every right not to let you into my house, no matter your history. You cannot debate this statement.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      I disagree with how the question is framed, around whether someone can do these things: People can do all sorts of bad things; they can mentally abuse their children, they can gamble away all their family's assets, cheat their co-workers and customers, they can hate and do many other things to ruin their lives, their family's, their neighbor's, their country's and the world's. People have the right to turn the U.S. into a broken state like Somalia. People have a long history of causing death, destruction, and pain to each other; I think that amounts to the same point in your comment, and I agree it's irrefutable. But who cares what I can do? Once we mature past childhood, it's meaningless; it doesn't inform our decisions. The question is not what can we do - who wants to do 99.9% of those things? - but what could we be doing? What are our obligations to our families, our neighbors, our societies and the world? What do we care about? What do we do well, where are we causing harm, and how can we do better? Saying we can be racist - well of course. But it distracts from the real questions: What harm is being done? There is very well-established, serious widespread harm being done to tens of millions of people because of racism; it's gone on for generations. What can we do to make it better? In most of the world, people (or at least some leaders) have chosen poverty, ignorance, and violence over liberty, and justice. In the U.S., people chose to do better - they could have chosen otherwise; I hope they continue to do so.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- serge2k 10y ago
  If you don't want to be subject to rules on how you operate a business out of your home, then don't operate a business out of your home.
- AgentME 10y ago
  >We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. Doesn't that describe every rule ever? I don't think the point of the US was to be lawless.
exelius 10y ago
Airbnb's model is to provide very limited oversight. If they have to support these types of grievances to any sort of regulatory standard, it's going to kill their business model because it means they will need to increase overhead with compliance systems. Humans are still way smarter than any AI automated system, so even the dumbest humans will be able to outsmart them unless they have people handling the complaints.
gbacon 10y ago
The simple solution of making cancellation history public would seem to go a long way, but there may be privacy implications.
tedmiston 10y ago
> At the end of the day, either airbnb lets hosts decide who stays or doesn't. Why not both? That's essentially what Instant Book does — let Airbnb decide who stays instead of the host.
- weberc2 10y ago
  I think the concern remains that the algorithm may be optimized for someone's ideology and not the safety of the host and his property. Barring that, I'm sold.
tzs 10y ago
> If they don't let hosts decide, they'll likely lose a ton of hosts, since having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. It's worse than that for Airbnb, I think. If they take too active a role in deciding who gets to stay it gets much harder for them to plausibly argue that they are not the entity that should be responsible for complying with zoning regulations and tax regulations and any other regulations that apply to hotels located where the Airbnb hosts are located.
- jonlucc 10y ago
  One option would be to somewhat anonymize the process, not giving the host all information about potential renters. That still places the decision to rent to a particular person up to the host, but might not provide enough information to discriminate.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  That was my line of thinking. Just like being an independent contractor... as AirBnb adds more rules and processes (aka control), there is going to be a threshold where their liability explodes and then could implode the business. The question comes... is that an established line that they can stop just short of OR is that a great big grey zone that will require a lawsuit to better define?
simonsarris 10y ago
I can think of one way AirBNB could attempt to persuade hosts: publish data showing that there is no correlation between any of [race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age] and the likelihood of a guest being a poor guest (ending in an insurance claim, or maybe just a very bad review). If the data shows that there is no correlation, they can prove hosts have no reason to let their prejudices get in the way of making more money hosting more people. If data does show a correlation, don't hosts have good reason to discriminate, just as insurers do (against say, age)?
- vkou 10y ago
  I'm sure that if AirBnB lays out an impartial, data driven argument, racists will realize the error of their ways. ... Right. Also, note that health insurer discrimination is the exception, rather then the norm (And it surprises me that it is even legal).
  - weberc2 10y ago
    I don't think the point is to convert racists as much as it is to prove to non-racists that the general actuarial tables don't apply specifically to AirBnB's renters.
- prmph 10y ago
  The usual arguments against your point have been well argued before, but I will repeat it here, because people all too often trip up on the seeming unassailable logic of your position: Men are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes than women, and 100% of crime is committed by humans. Would you suggest that "men" and "humans" as classes should be discriminated against as a result? What if, statistically, there were some weird factor, like the shape of ears, that correlated more strongly with the quality of a guest. Would you base your hosting decisions on that? You don't think it too neat and simplistic that, with race being something that speaks to the deepest prejudices in people, "data" has been found and collected that appears to support such prejudices? Statistically, poor people might be a net drain on economy. Do you suggest we get rid of them?
spaceflunky 10y ago
I did Airbnb for my personal residence for a few years, I was a "Super Host" three years in a row. These policies, while officially new, have been slowly edged in for a while and is the reason why I no longer use Airbnb. Why? 1.) Airbnb is still a new concept to a lot of people. Hosts need to time to work with a guest to make sure they know how the arrangement is suppose to work. Airbnb use to have a 'respond within 24 hrs rule' which got changed to a 'accept booking within 24hrs rule'. That change gave me little time to work with guests (especially first timers). I can't tell you how many times first-timers ask me questions as if i were hotel, "do you mind if i check in at 2am after my international flight gets in?" No. 2.) Removing pictures increases anonymity for guest and risks for hosts. Transparency is great for building trust. I could usually tell if a guest was going to good by the amount of information they shared about themselves. I hated it when first-time guest would reach out with zero information about themselves or a picture. It's like guests want to know everything about me, but they get to hide behind a veil of secrecy. 3.) Increasing the use of "instant-book" favors professionals as opposed to part-time home-sharers. Since I rented out my entire personal apt during work trips (never did room shares), I wanted to be damn sure a guest would be respectful of my home, so I needed to work with them (see #1). However, people who have a full-time airbnb place don't really care as much. They have a bunch of cheap ikea furniture and no personal belongings to worry about. This is in sharp contrast to what Airbnb claims to be, especially in SF. Since I have more to care about and more risk, the new policies do not work for me. 4.) Hosts aren't always forth coming with information NOR do they read the fine print before booking. I can't tell you how many people expected me to check them in at 2am, have an elevator, child proof my apartment, allow for dogs, and the list goes on and on. Great, now I've got to deal with people who don't bother to follow the rules. Look, I realize I have a lot of requirements, and you might say "well maybe I shouldn't be airbnb-ing" But my apartment was great for the right person and I was happy to share it. And I was almost always able to find the right person. I think Airbnb is great when its about finding the right place for the right person. I'm sorry that everyplace can be right for everyone. My apt is not a "one-size-fits-all" hotel and since they are forcing me to be one, I am no longer using the service.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Hotels don't get any of that. Why should you?
sfrailsdev 10y ago
I know that it can feel intractable, because change for the better is way slower then I'd like it to be, compared to technological progress. Discrimination may never be eliminated completely, but it can be reduced so that there are less incidents and a lower impact. And while some issues will be harder to prevent, others may be low hanging fruit. It's like software bugs. We may never be free of them, but we can and do build better and better systems, tools, patterns and mentalities for increasing awareness and reducing bugs. Nextdoor was able to reduce racial profiling with some software changes that increased awareness of possible racial bias and asked for additional details beyond race when people reported incidents. If software is eating the world, I bet it can take a fair chunk out of racial discrimination rates (or any discrimination) if correctly applied. At the end of the day, you can try to make a difference, or you can refuse to.
oh_sigh 10y ago
You could easily deny racists/sexists/whateverists this information by not forwarding the name or pictures of the person trying to book. You get to see all their reviews, but not what they look like.
- MarkMc 10y ago
  This comment needs to be higher up. Sure, AirBnB will lose a ton of hosts, but the solution is pretty simple.
paulcole 10y ago
> having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. Yes, but a huge number of AirBnBs are de facto hotels. And hotels mitigate risk with insurance and can't (and shouldn't) discriminate. There's nothing personal about running a hotel (or a whole chain of them as evidenced by the number of properties being managed/run by some AirBnB hosts).
hackaflocka 10y ago
The idea of forcing owners to let people who are not compatible, stay with them, is ridiculous. I'm Indian and smell of curry (probably... at least a few times a month). If someone hates the smell of curry, they should be allowed to blanket disallow Indians from staying.
- yardie 10y ago
  I'm West Indian and I love curry. And I also don't smell like it. What the hell do you do, bathe in it?
  - hackaflocka 10y ago
    You do smell like it. You just don't know it. Self knowledge is rare. I have it, you don't.
tptacek 10y ago
It's almost as if maybe people shouldn't be treating their homes as if they were commercial lodging enterprises.
abritinthebay 10y ago
Sure, they'll let the hosts decide - and then if/when a host violates these rules they can ban the host for breaking the rules. Basically it gives specific consequences to hosts being bigoted. Good.
hackuser 10y ago
> I don't know if this is really a tractable problem. You don't need a perfect solution in order to do something. They can improve the situation. And also it's important that they make clear it's unacceptable and take action: It's like bullying; people passively watching send the message that the behavior is socially permitted. People are hard wired to follow social norms. > they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever. Discrimination isn't forever. Protestants and Catholics, not to mention Irish and Italians, and many others used to riot against each other in the U.S. When John F Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected President it was actually a big deal. Now nobody even notices when a Mormon runs. Look at discrimination against women, Jews, LGBTQ, and many others. It takes too long, but the history is very optimistic. I even hear that most American voters voted for a black man - twice - only a generation after he wouldn't have been allowed to even sleep in a hotel in much of the country. (Could he get an Airbnb room now, if he weren't recognized? I sure don't want to go back to those days.)
mathattack 10y ago
If they do, then they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever. People can improve over time if they're nudged. People used to think slavery was ok, and attitudes changed. The majority used to think gay marriage should be banned, and attitudes changed. Small groups need to take a stand, and change big groups. To take a moral stand will ultimately cost Airbnb in the short term, so they should be lauded and supported for it. (Some people may choose to not open up their homes if they aren't allowed to discriminate)
gcr 10y ago
It absolutely is a tractable problem. Check out this article, which details some very simple UI tweaks that reduce racism on NextDoor, a neighborhood watch community: http://fusion.net/story/340171/how-nextdoor-reduced-racial-profiling/ http://fusion.net/story/340171/how-nextdoor-reduced-racial-p... Even simple things like requiring posters to give more details when their posts mention race can go a long way of improvement for that platform. There certainly must be some low-hanging fruit that's applicable to airbnb.
ebbv 10y ago
> since having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. I'd be interested in what % of rooms booked on AirBnB are actually people staying at some person's personal home with them and what % is rental properties, real bed and breakfasts, etc. I don't have any data but my impression is that it's mostly commercial renting by volume/$.
yuhong 10y ago
That reminds me that I dislike employment anti-discrimination laws too. I suggest a compromise to apply them only to things like manual labor where employees are commodities for example.

by dilap 10y ago

apalmer 10y ago

I think more or less this is where it is going to have to end up. Its probably bad PR for AirBnB but fundamentally, there is a reason that their is a 'high' barrier to entry for the hospitality business...

brightball 10y ago

That was my thought here as well. It's one thing to have very public businesses with anti-discrimination rules, but something like Air BnB where people have to decide in most cases who they are going to let into their homes is a much more complicated problem. We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. What if a host wanted to turn away somebody who was an avid white supremacist? This isn't the same thing as giving somebody a key to a hotel room. EDIT: Worth pointing to another comment that cites the law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577 > Those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to hosts' private homes or bedrooms.[1] Paraphrase of law: "All persons shall be entitled ..., and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,..., without discrimination ... other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"

guelo 10y ago
> We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. Freedom is a relative thing. Here we have AirBnB's freedom to not want racist hosts vs white supremacist's freedom to use AirBnB. The only freedom the ideal of USA is supposed to grant you is freedom from too much government meddling.
- vkou 10y ago
  > The only freedom the ideal of USA is supposed to grant you is freedom from too much government meddling. Really? Which amendment is that one? There are a few prominent restrictions on particular kinds of government meddling in the US. This by no means generalizes to the rest of it.
  - guelo 10y ago
    That's why I said 'ideal', it's not true in practice, but I was responding to the comment about the hypothetical "point of the US".
    - brightball 10y ago
      What I meant by that was individual liberty and the ability to make your own choices and decisions. Government meddling in that in this case is forcing people to do something they are uncomfortable with simply because they paid money while simultaneously running the risk of legal action if at any point you want to abort the transaction. The most basic example is akin to forcing somebody to sign a contract without knowing who they are signing it with.
      - vkou 10y ago
        We've tried allowing this kind of thing, and what we got was redlining, "No colored allowed" and "Dogs and Irish keep off the grass." If complying with anti-discrimination law is a problem for you, you should generally not be in this line of business.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Redlining is an explicit government policy, started by the HOLC (a government sponsored corporation created by FDR as part of the New Deal). Here's one of their maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Owners%27_Loan_Corporation_Philadelphia_redlining_map.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Own... Separating whites from colored was also explicit government policy. It was called Jim Crow. We never tried "this kind of thing". http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepage.htm http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa... The law was actually far more intrusive back then than it is today. For example, you might be shocked to discover that Jim Crow laws actually mandated discrimination in sexual relationships! The closest we've come to trying this kind of thing is the present day, where at least sexual relationships have been deregulated. (This one is a biggie for me, I discriminate pretty strongly against white women and think the government should not restrict my freedom in that way.)
runako 10y ago
> very public businesses One might argue that posting pictures of the interior of a residence, advertising it for rent by the night, and posting a price for such privilege is what makes a hotel a "very public business." (It's also why regulations apply to hotels.) One might also wonder that if these properties make a hotel or B&B a public business, what's different about AirBnB rentals? Sure enough, back in 1964 the US passed a law that defines (many/most) AirBnB rentals as places of "public accommodation": "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. " If the lessor isn't living there, it's a public lodging. (Also, it's not the lessor's "home" by virtue of the lessor not living there.)
- Spooky23 10y ago
  AirBNB has already established that they consider themselves very "special". Most other activities happening in your home, including renting out a room to a housemate, are not subject to discrimination laws. If you don't want a particular type of person in your home, you should have that right, whether that's because you have a safety or other concern, or because you are a racist asshole. If AirBNB wants to pretend it's a public accommodation now because discrimination affects its brand, tough. Maybe they should exert full control by building hotels in commercial districts.
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    Agreed completely. This is why shared home adverts are exempt from FHA regulations.
    - mikestew 10y ago
      This is not true. Rather than dig through the FHA for you, Craigslist's interpretation is easier to reference: https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA
mcshicks 10y ago
Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in housing. The law seems perfectly clear to me. As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful-- (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
- exelius 10y ago
  I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them. It's a typical problem of the "sharing" economy. I'm not sure the courts will agree with them, but their strategy has been similar to Uber's in that they come in, break the law (or at the very least operate in a legal grey area), then get so big that traditional regulatory systems have no way to deal with them.
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    I could agree with this. But, since the government will have to do all this inspection, I guess you agree that they will have to levy a tax on AirBnB to pay for it?
    - exelius 10y ago
      I doubt Airbnb would agree with that -- since it would make their rentals much less attractive when compared to hotels (which have taxes around 15-20% in most big cities).
      - cmurf 10y ago
        Ok then their model succeeds mainly on the basis that it's freeloading by being an exception to rules that apply to hotels. They're cheaper because they're not doing pretty much any of the things hotels are required to do, not just limited to taxes, but including the various health inspection regimes that states require for places of public accommodation including hotels. So yeah, you don't have to clean as well as a hotel if you don't want, you don't have to pay the taxes as a hotel or even a regular long term rental unit if you can get away with it (thinking IRS will consider a portion of your house converted into business property and thus subject to business property gains tax when you sell the house, but not limited to this), you don't have to follow or even give notice that you don't follow ADA, on and on, because AirBnB doesn't verify any of this and it's claimed it's not their responsibility to do so; but they also don't support even a licensing program by municipalities and rental history reporting so that these municipalities could do their own verifications. Basically if you even the playing field across the board between an AirBnB and hotel, you end up with something like an actual Bed & Breakfast (although typically without breakfast but often with access to a kitchen). All things actually being equal, even price per square foot, I'd probably pick an AirBnB, but I actively avoid it whenever possible because I think their success mainly constitutes free loading (and enabling it by property owners)
dragonwriter 10y ago
> We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. Arguably, the central point of the US was exactly to prevent people in positions of relative power from making certain decisions that others with less individual power disagreed with; perhaps the central debate between the modern left and modern right in the US is whether that generalizes from the formal political positions of relative power that were salient at the time of founding to economic positions of relative power (the position of the modern left) or whether the restrictions should be limited to only the domain of formal political power and that the exercise of economic power should be unconstrained (the position of the modern right.)
- weberc2 10y ago
  Are you making a point about AirBnB specifically or the U.S. generally? In case of the former, I can't tell which party (the renter or the tenant) is supposed to be in the position of relative power.
tptacek 10y ago
Yes, they're going to lose hosts over this. In fact, if they don't, that's evidence that they're not serious about it. A lot of people hosting through Airbnb shouldn't be.
- wyager 10y ago
  "If you have personal preferences about whom you let live in your home that don't align with mine, you shouldn't be allowed to have anyone in your home at all!"
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yes, that is generally the principle involved with business transactions like these. We tried it the other way, and all the black people ended up cordoned into North Lawndale. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case... As a society, we decided to amend the social contract to remedy this. You can choose who to have in your house based on any criteria you like. You cannot choose who to rent to on the same terms.
    - wyager 10y ago
      >we decided to amend the social contract to remedy this Where in the social contract is this clause? I can't find it. "It's in the social contract" is the ultimate weasel appeal. You're citing the authority of an imaginary document that, miraculously, contains whatever arbitrary moral edicts the person who invokes it happens to agree with. Transactions should be voluntary. People should not be forced to do business against their will. Whoever "we" is in your post, I'm not part of it, because I have a moral objection to slavery (I.e. Involuntary labor). Not that what AirBNB is doing constitutes involuntary labor; they're a private business and can set whatever terms they want for using their platform, in accordance with the principles I've outlined. I'm just saying that forcing homeowners to take in people they don't want to is sub-optimal and alienating for homeowners.
      - 10y ago
hackuser 10y ago
> prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. I'd stay away from these issues on HN unless we really have something valuable and new to add. I'll just say that there's another side to this and many strongly disagree with this notion. To sum it up and just put both sides out there (hopefully not starting a debate), people facing widespread discrimination, unable to get jobs, housing, health care, and even dinner and hotel rooms are not free, but oppressed. Also, it's long been part of US history, it's not a new trend. Anti-discrimination laws are one example.
- Chronic9q 10y ago
  It's my home and I do what I want. If you're black and I don't like you, I have every right not to let you into my house, no matter your history. You cannot debate this statement.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I disagree with how the question is framed, around whether someone can do these things: People can do all sorts of bad things; they can mentally abuse their children, they can gamble away all their family's assets, cheat their co-workers and customers, they can hate and do many other things to ruin their lives, their family's, their neighbor's, their country's and the world's. People have the right to turn the U.S. into a broken state like Somalia. People have a long history of causing death, destruction, and pain to each other; I think that amounts to the same point in your comment, and I agree it's irrefutable. But who cares what I can do? Once we mature past childhood, it's meaningless; it doesn't inform our decisions. The question is not what can we do - who wants to do 99.9% of those things? - but what could we be doing? What are our obligations to our families, our neighbors, our societies and the world? What do we care about? What do we do well, where are we causing harm, and how can we do better? Saying we can be racist - well of course. But it distracts from the real questions: What harm is being done? There is very well-established, serious widespread harm being done to tens of millions of people because of racism; it's gone on for generations. What can we do to make it better? In most of the world, people (or at least some leaders) have chosen poverty, ignorance, and violence over liberty, and justice. In the U.S., people chose to do better - they could have chosen otherwise; I hope they continue to do so.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
serge2k 10y ago
If you don't want to be subject to rules on how you operate a business out of your home, then don't operate a business out of your home.
AgentME 10y ago
>We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. Doesn't that describe every rule ever? I don't think the point of the US was to be lawless.

exelius 10y ago

Airbnb's model is to provide very limited oversight. If they have to support these types of grievances to any sort of regulatory standard, it's going to kill their business model because it means they will need to increase overhead with compliance systems. Humans are still way smarter than any AI automated system, so even the dumbest humans will be able to outsmart them unless they have people handling the complaints.

gbacon 10y ago

The simple solution of making cancellation history public would seem to go a long way, but there may be privacy implications.

tedmiston 10y ago

> At the end of the day, either airbnb lets hosts decide who stays or doesn't. Why not both? That's essentially what Instant Book does — let Airbnb decide who stays instead of the host.

weberc2 10y ago
I think the concern remains that the algorithm may be optimized for someone's ideology and not the safety of the host and his property. Barring that, I'm sold.

tzs 10y ago

> If they don't let hosts decide, they'll likely lose a ton of hosts, since having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. It's worse than that for Airbnb, I think. If they take too active a role in deciding who gets to stay it gets much harder for them to plausibly argue that they are not the entity that should be responsible for complying with zoning regulations and tax regulations and any other regulations that apply to hotels located where the Airbnb hosts are located.

jonlucc 10y ago
One option would be to somewhat anonymize the process, not giving the host all information about potential renters. That still places the decision to rent to a particular person up to the host, but might not provide enough information to discriminate.
caseysoftware 10y ago
That was my line of thinking. Just like being an independent contractor... as AirBnb adds more rules and processes (aka control), there is going to be a threshold where their liability explodes and then could implode the business. The question comes... is that an established line that they can stop just short of OR is that a great big grey zone that will require a lawsuit to better define?

simonsarris 10y ago

I can think of one way AirBNB could attempt to persuade hosts: publish data showing that there is no correlation between any of [race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age] and the likelihood of a guest being a poor guest (ending in an insurance claim, or maybe just a very bad review). If the data shows that there is no correlation, they can prove hosts have no reason to let their prejudices get in the way of making more money hosting more people. If data does show a correlation, don't hosts have good reason to discriminate, just as insurers do (against say, age)?

vkou 10y ago
I'm sure that if AirBnB lays out an impartial, data driven argument, racists will realize the error of their ways. ... Right. Also, note that health insurer discrimination is the exception, rather then the norm (And it surprises me that it is even legal).
- weberc2 10y ago
  I don't think the point is to convert racists as much as it is to prove to non-racists that the general actuarial tables don't apply specifically to AirBnB's renters.
prmph 10y ago
The usual arguments against your point have been well argued before, but I will repeat it here, because people all too often trip up on the seeming unassailable logic of your position: Men are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes than women, and 100% of crime is committed by humans. Would you suggest that "men" and "humans" as classes should be discriminated against as a result? What if, statistically, there were some weird factor, like the shape of ears, that correlated more strongly with the quality of a guest. Would you base your hosting decisions on that? You don't think it too neat and simplistic that, with race being something that speaks to the deepest prejudices in people, "data" has been found and collected that appears to support such prejudices? Statistically, poor people might be a net drain on economy. Do you suggest we get rid of them?

spaceflunky 10y ago

I did Airbnb for my personal residence for a few years, I was a "Super Host" three years in a row. These policies, while officially new, have been slowly edged in for a while and is the reason why I no longer use Airbnb. Why? 1.) Airbnb is still a new concept to a lot of people. Hosts need to time to work with a guest to make sure they know how the arrangement is suppose to work. Airbnb use to have a 'respond within 24 hrs rule' which got changed to a 'accept booking within 24hrs rule'. That change gave me little time to work with guests (especially first timers). I can't tell you how many times first-timers ask me questions as if i were hotel, "do you mind if i check in at 2am after my international flight gets in?" No. 2.) Removing pictures increases anonymity for guest and risks for hosts. Transparency is great for building trust. I could usually tell if a guest was going to good by the amount of information they shared about themselves. I hated it when first-time guest would reach out with zero information about themselves or a picture. It's like guests want to know everything about me, but they get to hide behind a veil of secrecy. 3.) Increasing the use of "instant-book" favors professionals as opposed to part-time home-sharers. Since I rented out my entire personal apt during work trips (never did room shares), I wanted to be damn sure a guest would be respectful of my home, so I needed to work with them (see #1). However, people who have a full-time airbnb place don't really care as much. They have a bunch of cheap ikea furniture and no personal belongings to worry about. This is in sharp contrast to what Airbnb claims to be, especially in SF. Since I have more to care about and more risk, the new policies do not work for me. 4.) Hosts aren't always forth coming with information NOR do they read the fine print before booking. I can't tell you how many people expected me to check them in at 2am, have an elevator, child proof my apartment, allow for dogs, and the list goes on and on. Great, now I've got to deal with people who don't bother to follow the rules. Look, I realize I have a lot of requirements, and you might say "well maybe I shouldn't be airbnb-ing" But my apartment was great for the right person and I was happy to share it. And I was almost always able to find the right person. I think Airbnb is great when its about finding the right place for the right person. I'm sorry that everyplace can be right for everyone. My apt is not a "one-size-fits-all" hotel and since they are forcing me to be one, I am no longer using the service.

st3v3r 10y ago
Hotels don't get any of that. Why should you?

sfrailsdev 10y ago

I know that it can feel intractable, because change for the better is way slower then I'd like it to be, compared to technological progress. Discrimination may never be eliminated completely, but it can be reduced so that there are less incidents and a lower impact. And while some issues will be harder to prevent, others may be low hanging fruit. It's like software bugs. We may never be free of them, but we can and do build better and better systems, tools, patterns and mentalities for increasing awareness and reducing bugs. Nextdoor was able to reduce racial profiling with some software changes that increased awareness of possible racial bias and asked for additional details beyond race when people reported incidents. If software is eating the world, I bet it can take a fair chunk out of racial discrimination rates (or any discrimination) if correctly applied. At the end of the day, you can try to make a difference, or you can refuse to.

oh_sigh 10y ago

You could easily deny racists/sexists/whateverists this information by not forwarding the name or pictures of the person trying to book. You get to see all their reviews, but not what they look like.

MarkMc 10y ago
This comment needs to be higher up. Sure, AirBnB will lose a ton of hosts, but the solution is pretty simple.

paulcole 10y ago

> having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. Yes, but a huge number of AirBnBs are de facto hotels. And hotels mitigate risk with insurance and can't (and shouldn't) discriminate. There's nothing personal about running a hotel (or a whole chain of them as evidenced by the number of properties being managed/run by some AirBnB hosts).

hackaflocka 10y ago

The idea of forcing owners to let people who are not compatible, stay with them, is ridiculous. I'm Indian and smell of curry (probably... at least a few times a month). If someone hates the smell of curry, they should be allowed to blanket disallow Indians from staying.

yardie 10y ago
I'm West Indian and I love curry. And I also don't smell like it. What the hell do you do, bathe in it?
- hackaflocka 10y ago
  You do smell like it. You just don't know it. Self knowledge is rare. I have it, you don't.

tptacek 10y ago

It's almost as if maybe people shouldn't be treating their homes as if they were commercial lodging enterprises.

abritinthebay 10y ago

Sure, they'll let the hosts decide - and then if/when a host violates these rules they can ban the host for breaking the rules. Basically it gives specific consequences to hosts being bigoted. Good.

hackuser 10y ago

> I don't know if this is really a tractable problem. You don't need a perfect solution in order to do something. They can improve the situation. And also it's important that they make clear it's unacceptable and take action: It's like bullying; people passively watching send the message that the behavior is socially permitted. People are hard wired to follow social norms. > they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever. Discrimination isn't forever. Protestants and Catholics, not to mention Irish and Italians, and many others used to riot against each other in the U.S. When John F Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected President it was actually a big deal. Now nobody even notices when a Mormon runs. Look at discrimination against women, Jews, LGBTQ, and many others. It takes too long, but the history is very optimistic. I even hear that most American voters voted for a black man - twice - only a generation after he wouldn't have been allowed to even sleep in a hotel in much of the country. (Could he get an Airbnb room now, if he weren't recognized? I sure don't want to go back to those days.)

mathattack 10y ago

If they do, then they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever. People can improve over time if they're nudged. People used to think slavery was ok, and attitudes changed. The majority used to think gay marriage should be banned, and attitudes changed. Small groups need to take a stand, and change big groups. To take a moral stand will ultimately cost Airbnb in the short term, so they should be lauded and supported for it. (Some people may choose to not open up their homes if they aren't allowed to discriminate)

gcr 10y ago

It absolutely is a tractable problem. Check out this article, which details some very simple UI tweaks that reduce racism on NextDoor, a neighborhood watch community: http://fusion.net/story/340171/how-nextdoor-reduced-racial-profiling/ http://fusion.net/story/340171/how-nextdoor-reduced-racial-p... Even simple things like requiring posters to give more details when their posts mention race can go a long way of improvement for that platform. There certainly must be some low-hanging fruit that's applicable to airbnb.

ebbv 10y ago

> since having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. I'd be interested in what % of rooms booked on AirBnB are actually people staying at some person's personal home with them and what % is rental properties, real bed and breakfasts, etc. I don't have any data but my impression is that it's mostly commercial renting by volume/$.

yuhong 10y ago

That reminds me that I dislike employment anti-discrimination laws too. I suggest a compromise to apply them only to things like manual labor where employees are commodities for example.