11 ms·

General questions about the Airbnb Community Commitment

62 points by michaelrkn 10y ago

hyko 10y ago
Sad that we have to codify this in 2016 as it seems obvious. I don't think the community commitment goes far enough. If you’re in the business of providing a service to people you shouldn’t be discriminating against them on any grounds apart from ability to pay, which is not an issue on the Airbnb platform.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jacquesm 10y ago
Airbnb can do whatever they want in property they own/lease. However since they 'share' (funny word that) people's private homes they will have to live with the fact that those people will refuse guests for whatever reasons they feel like, this is the flip side of the coin of not having a relationship where they are in control (employer, employee, owner of the premises). Airbnb wants to have its cake and eat it too, on the one hand not to own the premises and the goods stored in there but to pretend that they own it and set the rules about who can and can't come there. Nobody is going to admit to discrimination, even if they do agree, people will come up with alternative reasons for not allowing the people they do not wish to stay in their private homes, so nothing will change but Airbnb will look good. After all, what proof will they use to tell a host they are discriminating. If Airbnb wants to be able to dictate the terms at that level they should build a nice large building with a front desk with people they employ and a bunch of rooms they let out aka a hotel.
- Lucadg 10y ago
  > Nobody is going to admit to discrimination, even if they do agree, people will come up with alternative reasons for not allowing the people they do not wish to stay in their private homes, so nothing will change but Airbnb will look good. Correct. That's the whole point. It's basically just a political/marketing move the were probably forced to take. Nothing will change.
- Vintila 10y ago
  Yes, Airbnb can do what they want with their property, namely their website and business. If you don't like it then they even outline what you can do in the linked article. This knife cuts both ways.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    They are extending 'their website and business' into private property. That's a direct conflict without resolution, I confidently predict nothing will change and this is just window-dressing. Yes indeed, Airbnb can do what they want with their property, namely their website and business, and their customers property is not their business. > if you don't like it then they even outline what you can do in the linked article. Yes, you can ignore it, or you can move to a competitor and so on. Airbnb simply is not in a position to force anybody to accept guests they do not want to entertain for whatever reason, that's the way they set things up because that is the easiest for them. To now retro-fit a requirement that you can't discriminate is there to look good, not for you to stop discriminating. The only way they could enforce that is by forcing Airbnb hosts to accept all guests without the ability to refuse any of them and that will never happen.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Or AirBnB will face increasing levels of regulation, somewhat like the NYT did under the Fair Housing Act. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/14/nyregion/times-adopts-a-new-policy-in-advertising-for-housing.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/14/nyregion/times-adopts-a-ne...
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        I guess suddenly it will seem like there are a disproportionally large number of mixed couples in the area.
    - Vintila 10y ago
      I feel like this in argument which has been had so many times on HN but >They are extending 'their website and business' into private property. They offer a service with terms, you either accept those terms or you don't no one is forcing you to use their service. On the matter of enforcement, I agree this would be near impossible to enforce in all but the most obvious of cases of discrimination.
- gaur 10y ago
  > After all, what proof will they use to tell a host they are discriminating. Testers. That's partially how the government got evidence to sue Trump in the 1970s for housing discrimination.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    That doesn't scale. If Airbnb were to test every host to reliably prove discrimination or not their whole business model would fall apart.
    - raesene9 10y ago
      Sure they couldn't reliably prove it, but sample based testing + public consequences for those found to be in breach of ToS (e.g. some form of financial penalty) would likely make people who intended to discriminate less likely to use the AirBnB platform.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Maybe. But the more likely outcome is that people will simply continue to do what they do until they get kicked off and that every wanna-be renter of some Airbnb listed property is going to claim 'discrimination' from now on when they are refused.
        foldr 10y ago
        >But the more likely outcome is that people will simply continue to do what they do until they get kicked off So, that would be successful enforcement of the policy.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Yes, if it happens immediately. But most likely they'll be doing it for a long time, possibly years before something will be done about it and more often than not those cases will involve Airbnb getting bad press (which is what gave rise to this whole thing in the first place): http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/20/airbnb-sued-for-allegedly-ignoring-racial-discrimination-on-its-site.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/20/airbnb-sued-for-allegedly-ign... Or did you think they came up with this because they thought it was a good idea to tell people who they can invite into their homes?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- fma 10y ago
  The protected class citizens have a line drawn somewhere. The federal courts agree for roommates, you can discriminate because a roommate is a more intimate relationship than selling a house or renting out a house. Since AirBnB is supposedly sharing...I don't see how that's different from getting roommates. They would have to reclassify their whole stance on being about "sharing economy" and admit they are more for renting homes than sharing homes, and not allow of renting out a hoise while the owner also lives there. While they are at it, they can get Uber to reclassify themselves as a taxi company too.
  - matthewowen 10y ago
    They already classify properties as shared room vs private room vs entire place, so this isn't an issue.
    - fma 10y ago
      Their commitment states "we’re asking everyone"...So that includes people who are doing shared rooms.
- OliverJones 10y ago
  "What proof?" you ask? Housing antidiscrimination enforcement teams have been highly skilled at gathering this proof for well over a generation and making charges stick. Not sure about this? Ask your favorite search engine to look up "housing discrimination enforcement NYC" for example. If Airbnb were a local chamber of commerce making bookings for bed and breakfast places, it might be valid that they're just a booking office. But they're a major source of accommodations in large cities. As such they have to at least pretend to abide by those cities' antidiscrimination regulations. This policy is a way to do that without customizing the rules for each jurisdiction. People are free to use less controversial ways to offer their property for short term rent. I do that, and not because I discriminate (I don't), but because I want to keep a little bit more wealth in my community rather than sending it all to Sand Hill Road.
  - gaius 10y ago
    If AirBnB is able to dictate what it's landlords can and can't do that makes them disguised employees no? Something else the government is good at sniffing out!
    - csallen 10y ago
      No. Most businesses can dictate what its users do and deny them service for refusing to follow rules. This has nothing to do with employee status.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        In the Airbnb case that would be a very thin bit of ice to skate on but these cases usually hinge on a large number of things that can be tested and this would be one of those things. Other such items are your ability to set your own schedule, your own prices and so on.
        csallen 10y ago
        Yeah, I don't disagree with you. Just disagree with the parent who implied that Airbnb's new rules are sufficient for classifying landlords as employees. ("If AirBnB is able to dictate what it's landlords can and can't do that makes them disguised employees") They're not even close to sufficient.
- rokhayakebe 10y ago
  Wrong logic. This is the VERY reason we have societies so that we can agree to certain standards (laws). Laws cannot stop anyone from doing anything, they just exist so you understand there are consequences to certain actions. If we follow your logic everything will be left as is and we'll have anarchy.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    No, Airbnb is flouting the law left right and center but will hide behind it when it suits their purpose. This whole affair is simply to avoid some bad press, not to make any sweeing changes in Airbnb policies. Now they can point to their TOS and say 'see, it wasn't us', kick out the occasional host that makes them a target for bad press and continue business as usual. A real change would be to: (1) force hosts to accept all guests, without any kind of ability on the part of the host to decline guests and (2) to not show the guest details until the person shows up to receive the key. Anything short of that is simply window dressing.
aikah 10y ago
> I agree to treat everyone in the Airbnb community—regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age—with respect, and without judgment or bias. This isn't really "non discrimination", this is a vague non binding statement. The FAQ doesn't even says what happens when that "commitment" is broken. Just that you have to accept it. So the title here is misleading.
- avar 10y ago
  Did you just not read two paragraphs below that where it says "What if I decline the commitment?", or do you just think it's pertinent for some reason? Seems pretty clear: You can't discriminate, if you do we terminate your account at our discretion. Edit: I read the question only in the narrow sense of "what if you refuse to accept the new policy" v.s. "what if you break the policy once you accept it?". The answer to the latter seems to be: 1. You have to agree to Airbnb's TOS to use their site: https://www.airbnb.com/terms https://www.airbnb.com/terms 2. Section 24.C ("Termination for breach, suspension and other measures") refers to section 14 ("User Conduct") which says you can't violate the "Policies and Community Guidelines" which links to https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/250/terms---policies https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/250/terms---policies 3. That links to their nondiscrimination policy (https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/533/nondiscrimination https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/533/nondiscrimination), which seems to be the longer legalese version of what the linked blogpost is a tl;dr of.
  - lmartel 10y ago
    No, that's not clear. What's clear is that if you press "no" on the popup, they'll terminate your account. What will happen if you press "yes" and then continue to discriminate however you like? My guess: not much.
  - sparky_z 10y ago
    That's what happens if you decline the commitment. But what if you break the commitment? (That is, accept the commitment but discriminate anyway). I'll bet nothing at all, unless an egregious incident starts trending on social media.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sergiotapia 10y ago
I don't use Airbnb and most likely never will. However, let's say for argument sake I do want to rent my extra bedroom out. What if I don't want rent to some weirdo crust punk? I wouldn't feel like my children are safe. I would probably only rent out to single professionals only. I guess Airbnb is not a good fit for hypothetical people like me.
- angrow 10y ago
  What makes you think this would be against the agreement? Is crust a religion? An disability? "Dirty" isn't a protected class. I've personally experienced that some hosts refuse to rent to unmarried couples. It was inconvenient and silly, but perfectly legal and nearly harmless (unless their actual problem was that only one of us was white, but who can say).
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    The problem is this "sharing economy" facade. You have a right to pick and choose who you want in your home, even if you don't like LGBT folks, African Americans, caucassions, whatever. But the sharing economy isn't about sharing. It's about business platforms that monetize slack capacity of different resources. So you're operating a business now (yes, really). And a business can't discriminate against a protected class. And AirBnB wants to portray an aura of community, so instead of saying "you can't legally discriminate; don't or we'll kick you off the platform" it's the proverbial "can we not all get along?; you must to continue on the platform" Everyone will agree to this except a few folks who want to make a point, and those people who were discriminating before will continue to do so. Silicon Valley needs to learn that scolding, lynching, patronizing people online isn't going to fix systemic socioeconomic issues. Those take decades to show positive change, and require far more effort than the community outreach resources of a few companies in the tech industry. Edit: My comment should've been more specific. In a non-business setting, you can pick and choose who is in your home. Not when renting the entire premises out to someone. AirBnB tries to portray its transactions as community when it's really just a business, with the rules and regs that go with that (anti-discrimination).
ta10292016 10y ago
I can't stand the whole Airbnb image and culture. Your typical highly privileged founders, born into wealth running with the winds at their back, while they try to claim they are making the world a better place. And their engineering propaganda and how young college students are obsessed with working there. I can't think of how this company is technically innovative and solving hard technical problems like other unicorn startups are doing. At least companies like Stripe are actually doing interesting technology things.
arabGuy 10y ago
Throwaway for obvious reasons. I discriminate against people based on their national origin AMA.
- ddorian43 10y ago
  Give some examples.
  - arabGuy 10y ago
    I rent two studios in Paris. And I always decline requests coming from people that come from my country or neighboring ones (Tunisia, Morroco) unless they have stellar reviews. That includes people who were born in France but have ancestry from those countries (which is pretty easy to guess). That's because a) past history w. poor experiences b) I know too well they become overconfident when they see you are from there too c) generally speaking, they left my property in pretty bad state, with stuff that are broken or very dirty. Oh and they always ask you if you do the ramadan and stuff like that. I will continue to do so and Airbnb has no way to prevent me from doing that.
    - zeroer 10y ago
      I'm totally ignorant. What does "do the ramadan" entail for you? Can you just continue to refuse to rent to Tunisians and Moroccans? Does AirBnB have any way to detect that? Does AirBnB have recourse against guests who leave the apartment trashed? Insurance, etc.? I wouldn't rent to people who would trash my place, either.
      - arabGuy 10y ago
        >What does "do the ramadan" entail for you? Basically you feast all day and eat big at night and in the morning. And best case they look at you funny and take a moralistic tone about your haram behavior and worst case, well there is a lot of different worst case scenario when it comes to those folks. I don't want them to leave me a bad review because they are bitter about my "haram" behavior >Does AirBnB have recourse against guests who leave the apartment trashed? They do but I would rather not go through that, plus it is a hassle and I don't want to invest more time than I already do >Does AirBnB have any way to detect that? I don't know... but Paris is Paris. AirBnb is convenient but I won't have trouble finding an alternative if I have to
eruditely 10y ago
White people continue trying to speak for minorities, there's more to us than just black people you know, you can be skeptical for your safety if that's all the information you have.
- infosample 10y ago
  Airbnb provides a lot more information about a guest than a picture. You can be skeptical for your safety on Airbnb but it wouldn't be empirical.
nvahalik 10y ago
People discriminate every day. I discriminate against restaurants and babysitters and businesses all the time. Sometimes those discriminations are because of a feeling. Sometimes they are are based on my internal biases. Sometimes I disagree with the choices a business has made and if affects whether or not I do business with them. Why do we make such a big deal about "discrimination?" It's built into who we are as people.
- js8 10y ago
  I think it's about scale. If you as a single individual discriminate, no big deal. If a nation or a large corporation discriminates, it causes serious problems. Also, it's somewhat OK to discriminate against behavior that can be changed. So businesses are OK to be discriminated against, they are after all human creation. But we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race or sex or ethnicity, because these are impossible to change.
- ddorian43 10y ago
  One idea/theory/conspiracy that I have is explained in this Yuri Bezmenov "Brainwashing a nation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0 . It says that you fund counter-culture movements as much as possible for them to go completely full-scale. Examples: Black lives matter (which was a honest one at first) then went full kamikaze. Let's bring 1M+ syrians, what could go wrong (when Albania was in ~civil-unrest in 1997 all borders closed). Multiculturalism is ok friend. All cultures are equal (they're not, many suck, like roma example that I gave in another comment).
- redditmigrant 10y ago
  If some of us weren't constantly trying to get over our base instincts of discrimination we would still be in the times of segregation. If your subconscious discrimination is constantly being pointed out through various channels, it starts causing you to question it. Obviously it's slow and might take generations, but that's the nature of the process. I will give you a personal example - I grew up in a country where making fun of gay/transgender people is very common. So subconsciously I judged and probably discriminated against gay/transgender people. When I moved to California and I heard and saw the messages of marriage equality I started to question my subconscious. Now I'm at the point where watching movies from my home country makes me cringe every time a crass gay joke gets cracked.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ddorian43 10y ago
In a recent thread (too lazy to link), many users agreed that roma people ~suck in ~europe (because they keep to themselfes and their own culture, which sucks, and they don't integrate). I probably would discriminate against one if I was renting my "thing". It's time for airbnb(github/twitter too) to start dying I think. Edit: I welcome you to show your counter examples.
- tacunota 10y ago
  The problem with talking about Roma here is that Americans look at them as the blacks of Europe, which is not the case. There are good blacks. Lot more of good blacks than bad blacks, there's no question about it, and despite the statistics, I wouldn't act threatened around blacks, if I ever visited the US. I live in Southern Spain. Roma live so constrained to themselves they even speak Spanish with a completely different and very distinguishable accent. And you know what. They have earned that treatment themselves. They are not like blacks, most of them here do actually look like they are native. I know a few Roma that you wouldn't say they are Roma. Why? Because they chose the path of being civilised and they simply blend in. They act like actual humans. What I mean is: the Roma case is self-inflicted. If a Roma wants to blend in, he will, and you'll never figure it out. Blacks are different, since, well, you can see upfront when someone is black. And yes, Roma that act like Roma are probably the worst you'll ever have to deal with. There's literally nothing worse. If somebody wants to dispute this I'll be more than glad to hear, but please, only do so if you've actually had to deal with Roma--I live in a poor neighbourhood in Spain, with quite a few Roma families around, I've been to middle school and high school here and I've had to deal with Roma kids, and I know perfectly well what I've seen. Anyway and back to the topic at hand: I don't think Roma would actually ever use something like airbnb.
  - jrochkind1 10y ago
    I think it you are not from the U.S. You realize racists in the U.S. consider black people _the exact same_ way you consider Roma? You believe the distinction is that the racists in the U.S. are incorrect in their beliefs, but you are correct in your beliefs? Okay...
ta10292016 10y ago
What you've got here is your typical highly privileged founders born into wealth running with the wind at their back.
empath75 10y ago
I think this is long past due. For some background. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/how-airbnb-can-fight-racial-discrimination.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/how-airbnb-can-fig...
- curun1r 10y ago
  But it's the wrong way to go about it. The right way would be to make the initial negotiation phase blind...no pictures or names, just profile information like star ratings and how long they've been an AirBnB member. Hosts that back out of agreed upon reservations too often could be punished. A vague "I promise not to discriminate" agreement with no details about how discrimination is reported, dealt with and and how disputes are handled could cause more problems than it solves. At the end of the day, despite the BS line that AirBnB gives about people sharing their homes, the majority of the hosts are operating a small business, and one that's beholden to a single provider for business. There will be hosts that lose 100% of their income stream because of this and not all of them will be the problem hosts that are causing this controversy. Innocent hosts who just happen to have accidentally chosen incorrectly a few times will get caught. Or, more likely, hosts will live in fear of being accused and start discriminating in favor of minorities.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Yes, but then many people would no longer use Airbnb to host their property. See, the ability to discriminate is what is built right into the platform, and Airbnb knowingly enables this because they will make more money that way. They don't really care if you discriminate or not, they do really care that they are seen as being non-discriminating themselves. That's why this is worded the way it is.
sonink 10y ago
Somehow Airbnb mostly doesnt work for me. You find a nice/cheap place to stay, message the host and wait for 24 hours for a revert. Fairly often, the host declines for seemingly specious reasons. The bigger problem is the wait than the refusal. An Indian startup called OyoRooms has a much better solution to this problem.
- DINKDINK 10y ago
  >message the host and wait for 24 hours for a revert. Airbnb has an instant book feature that obviates this process
- mungoman2 10y ago
  I am not familiar with OyoRooms. What is their solution?
  - sonink 10y ago
    OyoRooms is the real Uber for hotel rooms. They take over cheap hotels, brand it and sell on their app.
    - calbear81 10y ago
      That's not Uber for hotel rooms. Oyorooms is a budget hotel brand that emphasizes a set standard that hotels that use their brand have to abide by.
- netsharc 10y ago
  Are you of a non-preferred race? The few times I've tried it, the host was either non Internet-savvy or seemed to have regretted the too low a price they set, cancelling and putting the place back in the market for a higher price.
  - calbear81 10y ago
    When hosts cancel on you, their calendar gets blocked for those dates and a notice is automatically posted to their reviews that they cancelled on a guest. These are there to prevent this sort of behavior you are describing. Hosts that violate these rules frequently will get banned.
gottam 10y ago
if someone is turning you down on airbnb based upon some arbitrary discriminatory factors, do you think you'd really want to stay with a person like that to begin with?
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  Probably. Most I have seen are entire apartments wgere you see the host for a few minutes at the beginning and a few at the end.
Lucadg 10y ago
I used to work in a camping site in Northern Italy many years ago. We were openly told not to accept people from the south of Italy as they statistically were more noisy. I didn't like it but it actually made sense. It just wasn't viable to mix Germans and Napoleteans in a tight space. I guess Germans earned that right with politness. Then one day I let gipsies in and I almost got fired.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Yes, non discrimination is nice on paper, but it is another issue when there's money on the line
  - Lucadg 10y ago
    I wonder which right should prevail in general: a) the right to host people I like and don't host people I dislike in my home b) the right to be what I want and be accepted everywhere. Again, I guess A should probably prevail and the Internet should take care of matching who I am with the hosts happy to have me. "regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age" We also manage bookings for apartments on the beach and openly write "Apartment for families. Groups of young people up to 30 years are not accepted." in Airbnb and other portals. So, is Airbnb saying we'll be forced to accept noisy and unruly drunk groups who will probably bring drugs and extra friends in the middle of the night damaging the newly build apartments? This just makes no sense. So it will be either: - This is not real, just some facade for political correctness - We'll get customers from other portals
- MarkMc 10y ago
  Yes discrimination can often be beneficial to the bottom line. It's still wrong though.
- boards2x 10y ago
  What a sad and pathetic excuse for discrimination based on culture and values. You're not only generalizing you seem to be in denial. Pay a visit to any popular vacation holiday in Spain or Portugal and test for yourself who are the loud, abnocious and ugly Europeans. We are doing our best to avoid any concentration of brits, Germans and Dutch on our holidays for the exact reason. We recently bought a house in Spain in a place we made sure was not popular with either, for this particular reason. Will be happy to share with you photos of ugly drunken Germans in mas lpalomas, loud and voulgar brits in Barcelona and Ibiza, a city which is struggling to contain this problem, which is mostly due to British visitors, or all of them in place like el Garf. You might want to discriminate based on money, but like the Russians are teaching us, no amount of money in the world can help hide voulgarity. Drumpf btw is of German extract. I'm sure you'll enjoy your company and will probably deserve it.
tdkl 10y ago
They can do that when the host will be protected against abuse of by law as well. Hell, it even wouldn't be needed. If you as a host knew, you would be compensated by any ill means done by the one renting - meaning AirBnb would claim responsibility - this clause wouldn't be such an issue. Because here's why this happens: people start declining to certain others based on experience. Some hear about others experience and don't want to even go down that road in the first place. Modern "PC" way of thinking caters to the minorities. Rights, rights, rights and so on. Businesses market on that. Media gets clicks and views based on that. But the modern western societies have forgotten that rights are only one side of the coin, there have to be RESPONSIBILITIES too. Responsibilities are harder, long term gratification and can cause non happy feelings. But no one can enforce rights without them, or we get to see the extreme effects as we do now.
jlkass35 10y ago
I think it's ok to require pictures if who will be staying in your house prior to deciding if you want to allow the rental or not. As an owner it's always you choice. If I dint want some who looks dirty , or a drug dealer in my house who I going to make you. Freedom if choice. If they don't like it there are other apps and sited to list vacation rentals on. Such as the big 4
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
zabeltech 10y ago
I have personally experienced that many hosts do not like to rent to young males. Some even restrict this in their description i.e "only for females". I hope this discrimination ends now
- dazc 10y ago
  As a male (who is not actually young) I accept a hosts preference not to rent males (young or old). It would save a lot of time if they clearly stated such (some don't for obvious reasons). If they have a lot of reviews it's easy to see but if (as is often the case) they don't then you don't know until they reject your booking. And, even then, it isn't so clear cut.
  - ryuker16 10y ago
    Usually the reason I reject is to jack up the price...
- Overtonwindow 10y ago
  That's discrimination. Blatantly. If that's in their description they should be reported.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
return0 10y ago
This opens up a hole for a competitor - there are legitimate reasons to discriminate guests, e.g. religious tourism, gay tourism etc.
MarkMc 10y ago
Despite this, I feel Airbnb isn't doing enough to fight discrimination. They need to ensure that the host cannot see anything that can identify a user's race, ethnicity, age, etc. No photos, no names, and a moderated comments and rating system. Until they do that they are placing their profits above principle.
- ryuker16 10y ago
  They actually pick the shittist jpeg image filter/cropping I've seen. Also, many guest like to pick super obscured photos or mixed group photos. I understand why hosts do it but not why customers. I barely have an idea what many of my guests look like. Some don't even have headshots
redthrowaway 10y ago
It's sad to see the tech community, which used to be very libertarian, move towards a hard-left progressive view of social issues. It wasn't that long ago that Friedman's arguments against equal pay laws[1] would have held sway here. The idea that the market punishes bigotry and so can be relied upon to advance freedom and equality used to be a core belief of the tech community. Now, it seems companies are falling over themselves to come up with ever more progressive and authoritarian solutions to problems that have only been complained about in the tech media--driven largely by people who care far more about culture wars than they do about tech. It's hard to see these developments and not feel that something important has been lost. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE
- dkopi 10y ago
  There's nothing unlibertarian about a private business making up its own terms of services and privately enforcing them. That's exactly how the free market self regulates without the use of force.
  - golergka 10y ago
    When a single business dominates an entire industry in such a way, it's not just a "private business" anymore - it's an institution and should be treated as such.
    - csallen 10y ago
      I must admit that it's amusing to see libertarians complaining about the decisions made by a private business and implying that the government should step in.
      - daxelrod 10y ago
        This reminds me of an op-ed in my private college's newspaper written by a self-described libertarian that using a portion of tuition to create a scholarship fund was a socialist redistribution of wealth.
bitL 10y ago
So renters are now AirBnB employees as well? /sUber
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  You jest but it's an interesting proposition. By forcing contracts onto the host and removing the ability of the host to edit and negotiate the contract it can be argued in a British court that Airbnb is in fact renting from the host, and that any legal infractions or damages in subsequent sublets of that rented space are AirBnB's responsibility. I don't have a copy of the hosts contract, but the items to watch out for are: - anything preventing the host from contacting guests after the let - anything preventing the host from letting the space elsewhere in between Airbnb lets - inability of the host to impose legally binding requirements on the guests - anything preventing the host from pursuing legal action against guests (eg, forcing the use of arbitration) Without three of the four I would be unlikely to challenge it personally. Though two not including the third might be enough.
throw56341 10y ago
Given that Airbnb discriminates in hiring based on race/gender[0], does this mean Airbnb will be in violation of their Community Commitment and thus unable to use their own service? [0]: https://www.airbnb.com/careers/departments/position/230510 https://www.airbnb.com/careers/departments/position/230510
hellome1 10y ago
I will always discriminate and not allow certain people in my home. I will take the risk that I'll be kicked off the platform. That's better than taking those people into my home.
davidjthunder 10y ago
Airbnb is a essentially "middle man" - a company that facilitates private individuals who wish to rent out their homes to strangers. This is a wonderful and much appreciated way of connecting strangers and building civil society bonds. But dictating to its members exactly on what terms and to whom they should be renting out their own bedrooms and homes seems to be, no matter how well-intentioned, to be self-defeating: it fosters an atmosphere of distrust and removes renters' freedom to exercise discretion about who stays in their home. It is inevitable that some renters will bring racist or xenophobic or other prejudices to the table when they decide who to rent their homes to. But there will be a whole range of positive and negative preferences about the type of person one wants to stay in one's home, many of which many not be motivated by racism or xenophobia, but by personal judgments about who one is prepared to open one's home to. Airbnb is trying to micro-manage how people exercise their judgment about who is a good fit for their home. They are trying to force people to trust everyone equally or to feel equally well-disposed toward all potential renters, as a condition for using their service. They may have the LEGAL right to do this, but it will be impossible in many cases to enforce with any reliability. Besides the notorious difficulty of enforcing this sort of discrimination edict without high levels of inteference and second-guessing of complex judgments, in my view, the new policy is likely to undermine, not promote, greater trust and respect betweeen renters and landlords, by fostering a more adversarial culture in Airbnb homes, where any refusal to rent is met with an air of suspicion and resentment and exclusion, as though opening your home to someone (even for money) was not a delicate matter. Cultural change and reform comes through education and experience. Airbnb permits people to be exposed to different cultures and values by opening up their home to strangers (and receiving payment in return). But I see no reason why Airbnd should appoint itself a sort of "moral policeman" to ensure that all renters are equally open to different cultures and communities. That kind of openness can be encouraged but it is quite absurd to think that it can be truly fostered in a positive way by getting people to tick a "community commitment" box before renting out their homes. In fact, I would argue that this new "community commitment" could be considered ethically dubious at best, since it will provide a strong reason to people who rely on Airbnb but wish to exercise their own judgment about who stays in their home to lie on the website. Furthermore, the effort to get people to formally "commit" to what is essentially an ethical attitude in a quasi-contractual way, as a condition for using this type of renting "middle man" is an extraordinary act of over-reach, it seems to me, insofar as it essentially means that Airbnb feel they can appoint themselves the arbiter and judge of people's private motives and prejudices, whether through some formal declaration on their part, or through a statistical analysis of their behaviour. Which raises the question, if Airbnb is worried about unjust discrimination in society at large, why does it think that setting itself up as a sort of "thought police" for its customers is a wise move? How can they not anticipat the inevitable resistance and backlash that will unleash, and its almost certain failure in practice to reform people's behaviour and attitudes (tick the box and move on)? And what does this sort of policy tell us about the type of authority that a middle man THINKS he has over his clients and their values, preferences, and lifestyles choices? Is there some sort of "saviour" complex going on here, where a company thinks they must engage in an aggressive campaign to control their users' mindsets and micromanage their own decisions about who to rent their homes to? Or is the new Airbnb policy, as some have suggested, just a response to some legal or social pressures to "look good and inclusive"? Whatever the answer to these questions, it strikes me that setting aside the legality of this new policy, the level of micromanagement and control it extends into clients' USE of the service and indeed into their values and attitudes regarding hosting people in their home, suggests a lack of trust in people's goodness and an unwillingness to take risks on people's goodness, to give them reasonable discretion to exercise their own judgments in the sphere of their own home (even if it is being rented out for profit). Indeed, this sort of campaign, which comes close to being a sort of indirect "mind control," seems to bespeak an impatience with the messiness of human life and human relationships, and of course impatience with idiosyncratic and unstructured nature of the motives of people who rent out their own homes. Sometimes, in order to foster or preserve an atmosphere of trust and respect in general, you have to allow within a system for the possibility that some people will exercise bad or unfair judgments, or treat some people without the full respect they deserve. Making a rule to compel everyone to be respectful is not always the best way to foster a culture of respect. Turning a modest facilitating service into a crusade for full inclusion and a change in cultural mindsets completely changes the nature of the Airbnb service, bringing it into the zone of a sort of "mind police" whose edicts will frequently be impossible to enforce. It is an excellent example of the trend in our society to attempt to control from on high, with relatively crude regulations, the delicate flow of human relationships and attitudes between different groups, ethnicities, value identifications, religions, etc. To be clear, I am not advocating racisms or invidious discrimination, but I am suggesting that (a) some degree of discrimination and profiling is a fact of life especially in the business of renting out one's own home, and it is not necessarily invidious, especially in situations of sparse information; and (b) to the extent that people do engage in invidious forms of discrimination when they rent out their homes, Airbnb is certainly not the appropriate entity to be rooting this out systematically - education and cultural reform must be carried out by winning over people's hearts and minds, and this work is already being done by the mere fact of cultural exchange permitted by the Airbnb network. Why spoil that work by implementing a policy that is likely to foster distrust, suspicion, and resentment among renters and proprietors?
davidjthunder 10y ago
Airbnb is a essentially "middle man" - a company that facilitates private individuals who wish to rent out their homes to strangers. This is a wonderful and much appreciated way of connecting strangers and building civil society bonds. But dictating to its members exactly on what terms and to whom they should be renting out their own bedrooms and homes seems to be, no matter how well-intentioned, to be self-defeating: it fosters an atmosphere of distrust and removes renters' freedom to exercise discretion about who stays in their home. It is inevitable that some renters will bring racist or xenophobic or other prejudices to the table when they decide who to rent their homes to. But there will be a whole range of positive and negative preferences about the type of person one wants to stay in one's home, many of which many not be motivated by racism or xenophobia, but by personal judgments about who one is prepared to open one's home to. Airbnb is trying to micro-manage how people exercise their judgment about who is a good fit for their home. They are trying to force people to trust everyone equally or to feel equally well-disposed toward all potential renters, as a condition for using their service. They may have the LEGAL right to do this, but it will be impossible in many cases to enforce with any reliability. Besides the notorious difficulty of enforcing this sort of discrimination edict without high levels of inteference and second-guessing of complex judgments, in my view, the new policy is likely to undermine, not promote, greater trust and respect betweeen renters and landlords, by fostering a more adversarial culture in Airbnb homes, where any refusal to rent is met with an air of suspicion and resentment and exclusion, as though opening your home to someone (even for money) was not a delicate matter. Cultural change and reform comes through education and experience. Airbnb permits people to be exposed to different cultures and values by opening up their home to strangers (and receiving payment in return). But I see no reason why Airbnd should appoint itself a sort of "moral policeman" to ensure that all renters are equally open to different cultures and communities. That kind of openness can be encouraged but it is quite absurd to think that it can be truly fostered in a positive way by getting people to tick a "community commitment" box before renting out their homes. In fact, I would argue that this new "community commitment" could be considered ethically dubious at best, since it will provide a strong reason to people who rely on Airbnb but wish to exercise their own judgment about who stays in their home to lie on the website. Furthermore, the effort to get people to formally "commit" to what is essentially an ethical attitude in a quasi-contractual way, as a condition for using this type of renting "middle man" is an extraordinary act of over-reach, it seems to me, insofar as it essentially means that Airbnb feel they can appoint themselves the arbiter and judge of people's private motives and prejudices, whether through some formal declaration on their part, or through a statistical analysis of their behaviour. Which raises the question, if Airbnb is worried about unjust discrimination in society at large, why does it think that setting itself up as a sort of "thought police" for its customers is a wise move? How can they not anticipat the inevitable resistance and backlash that will unleash, and its almost certain failure in practice to reform people's behaviour and attitudes (tick the box and move on)? And what does this sort of policy tell us about the type of authority that a middle man THINKS he has over his clients and their values, preferences, and lifestyles choices? Is there some sort of "saviour" complex going on here, where a company thinks they must engage in an aggressive campaign to control their users' mindsets and micromanage their own decisions about who to rent their homes to? Or is the new Airbnb policy, as some have suggested, just a response to some legal or social pressures to "look good and inclusive"? Whatever the answer to these questions, it strikes me that setting aside the legality of this new policy, the level of micromanagement and control it extends into clients' USE of the service and indeed into their values and attitudes regarding hosting people in their home, suggests a lack of trust in people's goodness and an unwillingness to take risks on people's goodness, to give them reasonable discretion to exercise their own judgments in the sphere of their own home (even if it is being rented out for profit). Indeed, this sort of campaign, which comes close to being a sort of indirect "mind control," seems to bespeak an impatience with the messiness of human life and human relationships, and of course impatience with idiosyncratic and unstructured nature of the motives of people who rent out their own homes. Sometimes, in order to foster or preserve an atmosphere of trust and respect in general, you have to allow within a system for the possibility that some people will exercise bad or unfair judgments, or treat some people without the full respect they deserve. Making a rule to compel everyone to be respectful is not always the best way to foster a culture of respect. Turning a modest facilitating service into a crusade for full inclusion and a change in cultural mindsets completely changes the nature of the Airbnb service, bringing it into the zone of a sort of "mind police" whose edicts will frequently be impossible to enforce. It is an excellent example of the trend in our society to attempt to control from on high, with relatively crude regulations, the delicate flow of human relationships and attitudes between different groups, ethnicities, value identifications, religions, etc. To be clear, I am not advocating racisms or invidious discrimination, but I am suggesting that (a) some degree of discrimination and profiling is a fact of life especially in the business of renting out one's own home, and it is not necessarily invidious, especially in situations of sparse information; and (b) to the extent that people do engage in invidious forms of discrimination when they rent out their homes, Airbnb is certainly not the appropriate entity to be rooting this out systematically - education and cultural reform must be carried out by winning over people's hearts and minds, and this work is already being done by the mere fact of cultural exchange permitted by the Airbnb network. Why spoil that work by implementing a policy that is likely to foster distrust, suspicion, and resentment among renters and proprietors?
suzannast 10y ago
I a frankly appalled with this new heavy handed "commitment" required. Rules - do not change people! When will we learn this - Anyone can sign this document and continue doing anything they want.. these are people's private homes we are talking about - the whole issue here was to develop a welcoming environment - or was it? One again "big daddy" wants control. I did not let my child just play with anyone or invite just anyone home - is that racist or lacking in inclusiveness? No I was responsible for her safety the environment she grew up in. I had to decide what was in her best interests for her development - all parents do this - race was never a deciding factor in my home but behavior was - if I am hosting an Air B&B guest I want to be able to use my "intuition" and be trusted to welcome people fairly - I need to feel comfortable with these people - not just accept anybody. I personally have never stayed at a B&B with anyone who I thought was racist or discriminatory in any way - why make rules for the minority and the exceptional... we need less rules and more trust - TRUST breeds TRUST - rules do not do that! Suzanna

62 points by michaelrkn 10y ago

hyko 10y ago

Sad that we have to codify this in 2016 as it seems obvious. I don't think the community commitment goes far enough. If you’re in the business of providing a service to people you shouldn’t be discriminating against them on any grounds apart from ability to pay, which is not an issue on the Airbnb platform.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 10y ago

Airbnb can do whatever they want in property they own/lease. However since they 'share' (funny word that) people's private homes they will have to live with the fact that those people will refuse guests for whatever reasons they feel like, this is the flip side of the coin of not having a relationship where they are in control (employer, employee, owner of the premises). Airbnb wants to have its cake and eat it too, on the one hand not to own the premises and the goods stored in there but to pretend that they own it and set the rules about who can and can't come there. Nobody is going to admit to discrimination, even if they do agree, people will come up with alternative reasons for not allowing the people they do not wish to stay in their private homes, so nothing will change but Airbnb will look good. After all, what proof will they use to tell a host they are discriminating. If Airbnb wants to be able to dictate the terms at that level they should build a nice large building with a front desk with people they employ and a bunch of rooms they let out aka a hotel.

Lucadg 10y ago
> Nobody is going to admit to discrimination, even if they do agree, people will come up with alternative reasons for not allowing the people they do not wish to stay in their private homes, so nothing will change but Airbnb will look good. Correct. That's the whole point. It's basically just a political/marketing move the were probably forced to take. Nothing will change.
Vintila 10y ago
Yes, Airbnb can do what they want with their property, namely their website and business. If you don't like it then they even outline what you can do in the linked article. This knife cuts both ways.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  They are extending 'their website and business' into private property. That's a direct conflict without resolution, I confidently predict nothing will change and this is just window-dressing. Yes indeed, Airbnb can do what they want with their property, namely their website and business, and their customers property is not their business. > if you don't like it then they even outline what you can do in the linked article. Yes, you can ignore it, or you can move to a competitor and so on. Airbnb simply is not in a position to force anybody to accept guests they do not want to entertain for whatever reason, that's the way they set things up because that is the easiest for them. To now retro-fit a requirement that you can't discriminate is there to look good, not for you to stop discriminating. The only way they could enforce that is by forcing Airbnb hosts to accept all guests without the ability to refuse any of them and that will never happen.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Or AirBnB will face increasing levels of regulation, somewhat like the NYT did under the Fair Housing Act. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/14/nyregion/times-adopts-a-new-policy-in-advertising-for-housing.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/14/nyregion/times-adopts-a-ne...
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      I guess suddenly it will seem like there are a disproportionally large number of mixed couples in the area.
  - Vintila 10y ago
    I feel like this in argument which has been had so many times on HN but >They are extending 'their website and business' into private property. They offer a service with terms, you either accept those terms or you don't no one is forcing you to use their service. On the matter of enforcement, I agree this would be near impossible to enforce in all but the most obvious of cases of discrimination.
gaur 10y ago
> After all, what proof will they use to tell a host they are discriminating. Testers. That's partially how the government got evidence to sue Trump in the 1970s for housing discrimination.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That doesn't scale. If Airbnb were to test every host to reliably prove discrimination or not their whole business model would fall apart.
  - raesene9 10y ago
    Sure they couldn't reliably prove it, but sample based testing + public consequences for those found to be in breach of ToS (e.g. some form of financial penalty) would likely make people who intended to discriminate less likely to use the AirBnB platform.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Maybe. But the more likely outcome is that people will simply continue to do what they do until they get kicked off and that every wanna-be renter of some Airbnb listed property is going to claim 'discrimination' from now on when they are refused.
      - foldr 10y ago
        >But the more likely outcome is that people will simply continue to do what they do until they get kicked off So, that would be successful enforcement of the policy.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Yes, if it happens immediately. But most likely they'll be doing it for a long time, possibly years before something will be done about it and more often than not those cases will involve Airbnb getting bad press (which is what gave rise to this whole thing in the first place): http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/20/airbnb-sued-for-allegedly-ignoring-racial-discrimination-on-its-site.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/20/airbnb-sued-for-allegedly-ign... Or did you think they came up with this because they thought it was a good idea to tell people who they can invite into their homes?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fma 10y ago
The protected class citizens have a line drawn somewhere. The federal courts agree for roommates, you can discriminate because a roommate is a more intimate relationship than selling a house or renting out a house. Since AirBnB is supposedly sharing...I don't see how that's different from getting roommates. They would have to reclassify their whole stance on being about "sharing economy" and admit they are more for renting homes than sharing homes, and not allow of renting out a hoise while the owner also lives there. While they are at it, they can get Uber to reclassify themselves as a taxi company too.
- matthewowen 10y ago
  They already classify properties as shared room vs private room vs entire place, so this isn't an issue.
  - fma 10y ago
    Their commitment states "we’re asking everyone"...So that includes people who are doing shared rooms.
OliverJones 10y ago
"What proof?" you ask? Housing antidiscrimination enforcement teams have been highly skilled at gathering this proof for well over a generation and making charges stick. Not sure about this? Ask your favorite search engine to look up "housing discrimination enforcement NYC" for example. If Airbnb were a local chamber of commerce making bookings for bed and breakfast places, it might be valid that they're just a booking office. But they're a major source of accommodations in large cities. As such they have to at least pretend to abide by those cities' antidiscrimination regulations. This policy is a way to do that without customizing the rules for each jurisdiction. People are free to use less controversial ways to offer their property for short term rent. I do that, and not because I discriminate (I don't), but because I want to keep a little bit more wealth in my community rather than sending it all to Sand Hill Road.
- gaius 10y ago
  If AirBnB is able to dictate what it's landlords can and can't do that makes them disguised employees no? Something else the government is good at sniffing out!
  - csallen 10y ago
    No. Most businesses can dictate what its users do and deny them service for refusing to follow rules. This has nothing to do with employee status.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      In the Airbnb case that would be a very thin bit of ice to skate on but these cases usually hinge on a large number of things that can be tested and this would be one of those things. Other such items are your ability to set your own schedule, your own prices and so on.
      - csallen 10y ago
        Yeah, I don't disagree with you. Just disagree with the parent who implied that Airbnb's new rules are sufficient for classifying landlords as employees. ("If AirBnB is able to dictate what it's landlords can and can't do that makes them disguised employees") They're not even close to sufficient.
rokhayakebe 10y ago
Wrong logic. This is the VERY reason we have societies so that we can agree to certain standards (laws). Laws cannot stop anyone from doing anything, they just exist so you understand there are consequences to certain actions. If we follow your logic everything will be left as is and we'll have anarchy.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  No, Airbnb is flouting the law left right and center but will hide behind it when it suits their purpose. This whole affair is simply to avoid some bad press, not to make any sweeing changes in Airbnb policies. Now they can point to their TOS and say 'see, it wasn't us', kick out the occasional host that makes them a target for bad press and continue business as usual. A real change would be to: (1) force hosts to accept all guests, without any kind of ability on the part of the host to decline guests and (2) to not show the guest details until the person shows up to receive the key. Anything short of that is simply window dressing.

aikah 10y ago

> I agree to treat everyone in the Airbnb community—regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age—with respect, and without judgment or bias. This isn't really "non discrimination", this is a vague non binding statement. The FAQ doesn't even says what happens when that "commitment" is broken. Just that you have to accept it. So the title here is misleading.

avar 10y ago
Did you just not read two paragraphs below that where it says "What if I decline the commitment?", or do you just think it's pertinent for some reason? Seems pretty clear: You can't discriminate, if you do we terminate your account at our discretion. Edit: I read the question only in the narrow sense of "what if you refuse to accept the new policy" v.s. "what if you break the policy once you accept it?". The answer to the latter seems to be: 1. You have to agree to Airbnb's TOS to use their site: https://www.airbnb.com/terms https://www.airbnb.com/terms 2. Section 24.C ("Termination for breach, suspension and other measures") refers to section 14 ("User Conduct") which says you can't violate the "Policies and Community Guidelines" which links to https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/250/terms---policies https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/250/terms---policies 3. That links to their nondiscrimination policy (https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/533/nondiscrimination https://www.airbnb.com/help/topic/533/nondiscrimination), which seems to be the longer legalese version of what the linked blogpost is a tl;dr of.
- lmartel 10y ago
  No, that's not clear. What's clear is that if you press "no" on the popup, they'll terminate your account. What will happen if you press "yes" and then continue to discriminate however you like? My guess: not much.
- sparky_z 10y ago
  That's what happens if you decline the commitment. But what if you break the commitment? (That is, accept the commitment but discriminate anyway). I'll bet nothing at all, unless an egregious incident starts trending on social media.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sergiotapia 10y ago

I don't use Airbnb and most likely never will. However, let's say for argument sake I do want to rent my extra bedroom out. What if I don't want rent to some weirdo crust punk? I wouldn't feel like my children are safe. I would probably only rent out to single professionals only. I guess Airbnb is not a good fit for hypothetical people like me.

angrow 10y ago
What makes you think this would be against the agreement? Is crust a religion? An disability? "Dirty" isn't a protected class. I've personally experienced that some hosts refuse to rent to unmarried couples. It was inconvenient and silly, but perfectly legal and nearly harmless (unless their actual problem was that only one of us was white, but who can say).
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  The problem is this "sharing economy" facade. You have a right to pick and choose who you want in your home, even if you don't like LGBT folks, African Americans, caucassions, whatever. But the sharing economy isn't about sharing. It's about business platforms that monetize slack capacity of different resources. So you're operating a business now (yes, really). And a business can't discriminate against a protected class. And AirBnB wants to portray an aura of community, so instead of saying "you can't legally discriminate; don't or we'll kick you off the platform" it's the proverbial "can we not all get along?; you must to continue on the platform" Everyone will agree to this except a few folks who want to make a point, and those people who were discriminating before will continue to do so. Silicon Valley needs to learn that scolding, lynching, patronizing people online isn't going to fix systemic socioeconomic issues. Those take decades to show positive change, and require far more effort than the community outreach resources of a few companies in the tech industry. Edit: My comment should've been more specific. In a non-business setting, you can pick and choose who is in your home. Not when renting the entire premises out to someone. AirBnB tries to portray its transactions as community when it's really just a business, with the rules and regs that go with that (anti-discrimination).

ta10292016 10y ago

I can't stand the whole Airbnb image and culture. Your typical highly privileged founders, born into wealth running with the winds at their back, while they try to claim they are making the world a better place. And their engineering propaganda and how young college students are obsessed with working there. I can't think of how this company is technically innovative and solving hard technical problems like other unicorn startups are doing. At least companies like Stripe are actually doing interesting technology things.

arabGuy 10y ago

Throwaway for obvious reasons. I discriminate against people based on their national origin AMA.

ddorian43 10y ago
Give some examples.
- arabGuy 10y ago
  I rent two studios in Paris. And I always decline requests coming from people that come from my country or neighboring ones (Tunisia, Morroco) unless they have stellar reviews. That includes people who were born in France but have ancestry from those countries (which is pretty easy to guess). That's because a) past history w. poor experiences b) I know too well they become overconfident when they see you are from there too c) generally speaking, they left my property in pretty bad state, with stuff that are broken or very dirty. Oh and they always ask you if you do the ramadan and stuff like that. I will continue to do so and Airbnb has no way to prevent me from doing that.
  - zeroer 10y ago
    I'm totally ignorant. What does "do the ramadan" entail for you? Can you just continue to refuse to rent to Tunisians and Moroccans? Does AirBnB have any way to detect that? Does AirBnB have recourse against guests who leave the apartment trashed? Insurance, etc.? I wouldn't rent to people who would trash my place, either.
    - arabGuy 10y ago
      >What does "do the ramadan" entail for you? Basically you feast all day and eat big at night and in the morning. And best case they look at you funny and take a moralistic tone about your haram behavior and worst case, well there is a lot of different worst case scenario when it comes to those folks. I don't want them to leave me a bad review because they are bitter about my "haram" behavior >Does AirBnB have recourse against guests who leave the apartment trashed? They do but I would rather not go through that, plus it is a hassle and I don't want to invest more time than I already do >Does AirBnB have any way to detect that? I don't know... but Paris is Paris. AirBnb is convenient but I won't have trouble finding an alternative if I have to

eruditely 10y ago

White people continue trying to speak for minorities, there's more to us than just black people you know, you can be skeptical for your safety if that's all the information you have.

infosample 10y ago
Airbnb provides a lot more information about a guest than a picture. You can be skeptical for your safety on Airbnb but it wouldn't be empirical.

nvahalik 10y ago

People discriminate every day. I discriminate against restaurants and babysitters and businesses all the time. Sometimes those discriminations are because of a feeling. Sometimes they are are based on my internal biases. Sometimes I disagree with the choices a business has made and if affects whether or not I do business with them. Why do we make such a big deal about "discrimination?" It's built into who we are as people.

js8 10y ago
I think it's about scale. If you as a single individual discriminate, no big deal. If a nation or a large corporation discriminates, it causes serious problems. Also, it's somewhat OK to discriminate against behavior that can be changed. So businesses are OK to be discriminated against, they are after all human creation. But we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race or sex or ethnicity, because these are impossible to change.
ddorian43 10y ago
One idea/theory/conspiracy that I have is explained in this Yuri Bezmenov "Brainwashing a nation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0 . It says that you fund counter-culture movements as much as possible for them to go completely full-scale. Examples: Black lives matter (which was a honest one at first) then went full kamikaze. Let's bring 1M+ syrians, what could go wrong (when Albania was in ~civil-unrest in 1997 all borders closed). Multiculturalism is ok friend. All cultures are equal (they're not, many suck, like roma example that I gave in another comment).
redditmigrant 10y ago
If some of us weren't constantly trying to get over our base instincts of discrimination we would still be in the times of segregation. If your subconscious discrimination is constantly being pointed out through various channels, it starts causing you to question it. Obviously it's slow and might take generations, but that's the nature of the process. I will give you a personal example - I grew up in a country where making fun of gay/transgender people is very common. So subconsciously I judged and probably discriminated against gay/transgender people. When I moved to California and I heard and saw the messages of marriage equality I started to question my subconscious. Now I'm at the point where watching movies from my home country makes me cringe every time a crass gay joke gets cracked.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ddorian43 10y ago

In a recent thread (too lazy to link), many users agreed that roma people ~suck in ~europe (because they keep to themselfes and their own culture, which sucks, and they don't integrate). I probably would discriminate against one if I was renting my "thing". It's time for airbnb(github/twitter too) to start dying I think. Edit: I welcome you to show your counter examples.

tacunota 10y ago
The problem with talking about Roma here is that Americans look at them as the blacks of Europe, which is not the case. There are good blacks. Lot more of good blacks than bad blacks, there's no question about it, and despite the statistics, I wouldn't act threatened around blacks, if I ever visited the US. I live in Southern Spain. Roma live so constrained to themselves they even speak Spanish with a completely different and very distinguishable accent. And you know what. They have earned that treatment themselves. They are not like blacks, most of them here do actually look like they are native. I know a few Roma that you wouldn't say they are Roma. Why? Because they chose the path of being civilised and they simply blend in. They act like actual humans. What I mean is: the Roma case is self-inflicted. If a Roma wants to blend in, he will, and you'll never figure it out. Blacks are different, since, well, you can see upfront when someone is black. And yes, Roma that act like Roma are probably the worst you'll ever have to deal with. There's literally nothing worse. If somebody wants to dispute this I'll be more than glad to hear, but please, only do so if you've actually had to deal with Roma--I live in a poor neighbourhood in Spain, with quite a few Roma families around, I've been to middle school and high school here and I've had to deal with Roma kids, and I know perfectly well what I've seen. Anyway and back to the topic at hand: I don't think Roma would actually ever use something like airbnb.
- jrochkind1 10y ago
  I think it you are not from the U.S. You realize racists in the U.S. consider black people _the exact same_ way you consider Roma? You believe the distinction is that the racists in the U.S. are incorrect in their beliefs, but you are correct in your beliefs? Okay...

ta10292016 10y ago

What you've got here is your typical highly privileged founders born into wealth running with the wind at their back.

empath75 10y ago

I think this is long past due. For some background. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/how-airbnb-can-fight-racial-discrimination.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/how-airbnb-can-fig...

curun1r 10y ago
But it's the wrong way to go about it. The right way would be to make the initial negotiation phase blind...no pictures or names, just profile information like star ratings and how long they've been an AirBnB member. Hosts that back out of agreed upon reservations too often could be punished. A vague "I promise not to discriminate" agreement with no details about how discrimination is reported, dealt with and and how disputes are handled could cause more problems than it solves. At the end of the day, despite the BS line that AirBnB gives about people sharing their homes, the majority of the hosts are operating a small business, and one that's beholden to a single provider for business. There will be hosts that lose 100% of their income stream because of this and not all of them will be the problem hosts that are causing this controversy. Innocent hosts who just happen to have accidentally chosen incorrectly a few times will get caught. Or, more likely, hosts will live in fear of being accused and start discriminating in favor of minorities.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Yes, but then many people would no longer use Airbnb to host their property. See, the ability to discriminate is what is built right into the platform, and Airbnb knowingly enables this because they will make more money that way. They don't really care if you discriminate or not, they do really care that they are seen as being non-discriminating themselves. That's why this is worded the way it is.

sonink 10y ago

Somehow Airbnb mostly doesnt work for me. You find a nice/cheap place to stay, message the host and wait for 24 hours for a revert. Fairly often, the host declines for seemingly specious reasons. The bigger problem is the wait than the refusal. An Indian startup called OyoRooms has a much better solution to this problem.

DINKDINK 10y ago
>message the host and wait for 24 hours for a revert. Airbnb has an instant book feature that obviates this process
mungoman2 10y ago
I am not familiar with OyoRooms. What is their solution?
- sonink 10y ago
  OyoRooms is the real Uber for hotel rooms. They take over cheap hotels, brand it and sell on their app.
  - calbear81 10y ago
    That's not Uber for hotel rooms. Oyorooms is a budget hotel brand that emphasizes a set standard that hotels that use their brand have to abide by.
netsharc 10y ago
Are you of a non-preferred race? The few times I've tried it, the host was either non Internet-savvy or seemed to have regretted the too low a price they set, cancelling and putting the place back in the market for a higher price.
- calbear81 10y ago
  When hosts cancel on you, their calendar gets blocked for those dates and a notice is automatically posted to their reviews that they cancelled on a guest. These are there to prevent this sort of behavior you are describing. Hosts that violate these rules frequently will get banned.

gottam 10y ago

if someone is turning you down on airbnb based upon some arbitrary discriminatory factors, do you think you'd really want to stay with a person like that to begin with?

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
Probably. Most I have seen are entire apartments wgere you see the host for a few minutes at the beginning and a few at the end.

Lucadg 10y ago

I used to work in a camping site in Northern Italy many years ago. We were openly told not to accept people from the south of Italy as they statistically were more noisy. I didn't like it but it actually made sense. It just wasn't viable to mix Germans and Napoleteans in a tight space. I guess Germans earned that right with politness. Then one day I let gipsies in and I almost got fired.

raverbashing 10y ago
Yes, non discrimination is nice on paper, but it is another issue when there's money on the line
- Lucadg 10y ago
  I wonder which right should prevail in general: a) the right to host people I like and don't host people I dislike in my home b) the right to be what I want and be accepted everywhere. Again, I guess A should probably prevail and the Internet should take care of matching who I am with the hosts happy to have me. "regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age" We also manage bookings for apartments on the beach and openly write "Apartment for families. Groups of young people up to 30 years are not accepted." in Airbnb and other portals. So, is Airbnb saying we'll be forced to accept noisy and unruly drunk groups who will probably bring drugs and extra friends in the middle of the night damaging the newly build apartments? This just makes no sense. So it will be either: - This is not real, just some facade for political correctness - We'll get customers from other portals
MarkMc 10y ago
Yes discrimination can often be beneficial to the bottom line. It's still wrong though.
boards2x 10y ago
What a sad and pathetic excuse for discrimination based on culture and values. You're not only generalizing you seem to be in denial. Pay a visit to any popular vacation holiday in Spain or Portugal and test for yourself who are the loud, abnocious and ugly Europeans. We are doing our best to avoid any concentration of brits, Germans and Dutch on our holidays for the exact reason. We recently bought a house in Spain in a place we made sure was not popular with either, for this particular reason. Will be happy to share with you photos of ugly drunken Germans in mas lpalomas, loud and voulgar brits in Barcelona and Ibiza, a city which is struggling to contain this problem, which is mostly due to British visitors, or all of them in place like el Garf. You might want to discriminate based on money, but like the Russians are teaching us, no amount of money in the world can help hide voulgarity. Drumpf btw is of German extract. I'm sure you'll enjoy your company and will probably deserve it.

tdkl 10y ago

They can do that when the host will be protected against abuse of by law as well. Hell, it even wouldn't be needed. If you as a host knew, you would be compensated by any ill means done by the one renting - meaning AirBnb would claim responsibility - this clause wouldn't be such an issue. Because here's why this happens: people start declining to certain others based on experience. Some hear about others experience and don't want to even go down that road in the first place. Modern "PC" way of thinking caters to the minorities. Rights, rights, rights and so on. Businesses market on that. Media gets clicks and views based on that. But the modern western societies have forgotten that rights are only one side of the coin, there have to be RESPONSIBILITIES too. Responsibilities are harder, long term gratification and can cause non happy feelings. But no one can enforce rights without them, or we get to see the extreme effects as we do now.

jlkass35 10y ago

I think it's ok to require pictures if who will be staying in your house prior to deciding if you want to allow the rental or not. As an owner it's always you choice. If I dint want some who looks dirty , or a drug dealer in my house who I going to make you. Freedom if choice. If they don't like it there are other apps and sited to list vacation rentals on. Such as the big 4

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

zabeltech 10y ago

I have personally experienced that many hosts do not like to rent to young males. Some even restrict this in their description i.e "only for females". I hope this discrimination ends now

dazc 10y ago
As a male (who is not actually young) I accept a hosts preference not to rent males (young or old). It would save a lot of time if they clearly stated such (some don't for obvious reasons). If they have a lot of reviews it's easy to see but if (as is often the case) they don't then you don't know until they reject your booking. And, even then, it isn't so clear cut.
- ryuker16 10y ago
  Usually the reason I reject is to jack up the price...
Overtonwindow 10y ago
That's discrimination. Blatantly. If that's in their description they should be reported.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

return0 10y ago

This opens up a hole for a competitor - there are legitimate reasons to discriminate guests, e.g. religious tourism, gay tourism etc.

MarkMc 10y ago

Despite this, I feel Airbnb isn't doing enough to fight discrimination. They need to ensure that the host cannot see anything that can identify a user's race, ethnicity, age, etc. No photos, no names, and a moderated comments and rating system. Until they do that they are placing their profits above principle.

ryuker16 10y ago
They actually pick the shittist jpeg image filter/cropping I've seen. Also, many guest like to pick super obscured photos or mixed group photos. I understand why hosts do it but not why customers. I barely have an idea what many of my guests look like. Some don't even have headshots

redthrowaway 10y ago

It's sad to see the tech community, which used to be very libertarian, move towards a hard-left progressive view of social issues. It wasn't that long ago that Friedman's arguments against equal pay laws[1] would have held sway here. The idea that the market punishes bigotry and so can be relied upon to advance freedom and equality used to be a core belief of the tech community. Now, it seems companies are falling over themselves to come up with ever more progressive and authoritarian solutions to problems that have only been complained about in the tech media--driven largely by people who care far more about culture wars than they do about tech. It's hard to see these developments and not feel that something important has been lost. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

dkopi 10y ago
There's nothing unlibertarian about a private business making up its own terms of services and privately enforcing them. That's exactly how the free market self regulates without the use of force.
- golergka 10y ago
  When a single business dominates an entire industry in such a way, it's not just a "private business" anymore - it's an institution and should be treated as such.
  - csallen 10y ago
    I must admit that it's amusing to see libertarians complaining about the decisions made by a private business and implying that the government should step in.
    - daxelrod 10y ago
      This reminds me of an op-ed in my private college's newspaper written by a self-described libertarian that using a portion of tuition to create a scholarship fund was a socialist redistribution of wealth.

bitL 10y ago

So renters are now AirBnB employees as well? /sUber

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
You jest but it's an interesting proposition. By forcing contracts onto the host and removing the ability of the host to edit and negotiate the contract it can be argued in a British court that Airbnb is in fact renting from the host, and that any legal infractions or damages in subsequent sublets of that rented space are AirBnB's responsibility. I don't have a copy of the hosts contract, but the items to watch out for are: - anything preventing the host from contacting guests after the let - anything preventing the host from letting the space elsewhere in between Airbnb lets - inability of the host to impose legally binding requirements on the guests - anything preventing the host from pursuing legal action against guests (eg, forcing the use of arbitration) Without three of the four I would be unlikely to challenge it personally. Though two not including the third might be enough.

throw56341 10y ago

Given that Airbnb discriminates in hiring based on race/gender[0], does this mean Airbnb will be in violation of their Community Commitment and thus unable to use their own service? [0]: https://www.airbnb.com/careers/departments/position/230510 https://www.airbnb.com/careers/departments/position/230510

hellome1 10y ago

I will always discriminate and not allow certain people in my home. I will take the risk that I'll be kicked off the platform. That's better than taking those people into my home.

davidjthunder 10y ago

Airbnb is a essentially "middle man" - a company that facilitates private individuals who wish to rent out their homes to strangers. This is a wonderful and much appreciated way of connecting strangers and building civil society bonds. But dictating to its members exactly on what terms and to whom they should be renting out their own bedrooms and homes seems to be, no matter how well-intentioned, to be self-defeating: it fosters an atmosphere of distrust and removes renters' freedom to exercise discretion about who stays in their home. It is inevitable that some renters will bring racist or xenophobic or other prejudices to the table when they decide who to rent their homes to. But there will be a whole range of positive and negative preferences about the type of person one wants to stay in one's home, many of which many not be motivated by racism or xenophobia, but by personal judgments about who one is prepared to open one's home to. Airbnb is trying to micro-manage how people exercise their judgment about who is a good fit for their home. They are trying to force people to trust everyone equally or to feel equally well-disposed toward all potential renters, as a condition for using their service. They may have the LEGAL right to do this, but it will be impossible in many cases to enforce with any reliability. Besides the notorious difficulty of enforcing this sort of discrimination edict without high levels of inteference and second-guessing of complex judgments, in my view, the new policy is likely to undermine, not promote, greater trust and respect betweeen renters and landlords, by fostering a more adversarial culture in Airbnb homes, where any refusal to rent is met with an air of suspicion and resentment and exclusion, as though opening your home to someone (even for money) was not a delicate matter. Cultural change and reform comes through education and experience. Airbnb permits people to be exposed to different cultures and values by opening up their home to strangers (and receiving payment in return). But I see no reason why Airbnd should appoint itself a sort of "moral policeman" to ensure that all renters are equally open to different cultures and communities. That kind of openness can be encouraged but it is quite absurd to think that it can be truly fostered in a positive way by getting people to tick a "community commitment" box before renting out their homes. In fact, I would argue that this new "community commitment" could be considered ethically dubious at best, since it will provide a strong reason to people who rely on Airbnb but wish to exercise their own judgment about who stays in their home to lie on the website. Furthermore, the effort to get people to formally "commit" to what is essentially an ethical attitude in a quasi-contractual way, as a condition for using this type of renting "middle man" is an extraordinary act of over-reach, it seems to me, insofar as it essentially means that Airbnb feel they can appoint themselves the arbiter and judge of people's private motives and prejudices, whether through some formal declaration on their part, or through a statistical analysis of their behaviour. Which raises the question, if Airbnb is worried about unjust discrimination in society at large, why does it think that setting itself up as a sort of "thought police" for its customers is a wise move? How can they not anticipat the inevitable resistance and backlash that will unleash, and its almost certain failure in practice to reform people's behaviour and attitudes (tick the box and move on)? And what does this sort of policy tell us about the type of authority that a middle man THINKS he has over his clients and their values, preferences, and lifestyles choices? Is there some sort of "saviour" complex going on here, where a company thinks they must engage in an aggressive campaign to control their users' mindsets and micromanage their own decisions about who to rent their homes to? Or is the new Airbnb policy, as some have suggested, just a response to some legal or social pressures to "look good and inclusive"? Whatever the answer to these questions, it strikes me that setting aside the legality of this new policy, the level of micromanagement and control it extends into clients' USE of the service and indeed into their values and attitudes regarding hosting people in their home, suggests a lack of trust in people's goodness and an unwillingness to take risks on people's goodness, to give them reasonable discretion to exercise their own judgments in the sphere of their own home (even if it is being rented out for profit). Indeed, this sort of campaign, which comes close to being a sort of indirect "mind control," seems to bespeak an impatience with the messiness of human life and human relationships, and of course impatience with idiosyncratic and unstructured nature of the motives of people who rent out their own homes. Sometimes, in order to foster or preserve an atmosphere of trust and respect in general, you have to allow within a system for the possibility that some people will exercise bad or unfair judgments, or treat some people without the full respect they deserve. Making a rule to compel everyone to be respectful is not always the best way to foster a culture of respect. Turning a modest facilitating service into a crusade for full inclusion and a change in cultural mindsets completely changes the nature of the Airbnb service, bringing it into the zone of a sort of "mind police" whose edicts will frequently be impossible to enforce. It is an excellent example of the trend in our society to attempt to control from on high, with relatively crude regulations, the delicate flow of human relationships and attitudes between different groups, ethnicities, value identifications, religions, etc. To be clear, I am not advocating racisms or invidious discrimination, but I am suggesting that (a) some degree of discrimination and profiling is a fact of life especially in the business of renting out one's own home, and it is not necessarily invidious, especially in situations of sparse information; and (b) to the extent that people do engage in invidious forms of discrimination when they rent out their homes, Airbnb is certainly not the appropriate entity to be rooting this out systematically - education and cultural reform must be carried out by winning over people's hearts and minds, and this work is already being done by the mere fact of cultural exchange permitted by the Airbnb network. Why spoil that work by implementing a policy that is likely to foster distrust, suspicion, and resentment among renters and proprietors?

davidjthunder 10y ago

suzannast 10y ago

I a frankly appalled with this new heavy handed "commitment" required. Rules - do not change people! When will we learn this - Anyone can sign this document and continue doing anything they want.. these are people's private homes we are talking about - the whole issue here was to develop a welcoming environment - or was it? One again "big daddy" wants control. I did not let my child just play with anyone or invite just anyone home - is that racist or lacking in inclusiveness? No I was responsible for her safety the environment she grew up in. I had to decide what was in her best interests for her development - all parents do this - race was never a deciding factor in my home but behavior was - if I am hosting an Air B&B guest I want to be able to use my "intuition" and be trusted to welcome people fairly - I need to feel comfortable with these people - not just accept anybody. I personally have never stayed at a B&B with anyone who I thought was racist or discriminatory in any way - why make rules for the minority and the exceptional... we need less rules and more trust - TRUST breeds TRUST - rules do not do that! Suzanna