5 ms·

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 lin

by 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.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Those terms and conditions are meaningless without across the board enforcement.
- robrenaud 10y ago
  This means that you believe AirBNB will never ban a host for racism?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    No, it means they will ban a couple of hosts to 'set an example' and then move on because there is no money in getting rid of hosts short of the most horrible (and probably press-worthy) cases. This is a typical case of CYA.
Canada 10y ago
True, though I think this is a dick move: "If you cancel your account as a guest, any future reservations you have will be refunded according to the hosts' cancellation policy." So, if you don't agree to this demand by AirBnB that wasn't on the table when you agreed to your booking, then you just lose your money. If AirBnB was fair about this then it would let the user off the hook and pay out any cancellation fees/compensation out of its own funds. It's not like many people aren't going to agree anyway.
- dmurray 10y ago
  It looks like you can "decline the commitment" but not exercise "the option to cancel your account" according to the language on the announcement. So I think they will let you honour existing bookings without agreeing to the new commitment.
  - Canada 10y ago
    You may be right. The wording is ambiguous on whether declining requires cancelation or not. Anyone seen the UI of the agreement dialog yet?
tomohawk 10y ago
This is not the problem. The problem is that Airbnb is making demands on what people do or don't do with their own homes far beyond providing bed and/or breakfast. They're making demands about how people think. My head is not their property. My home is not their property. It's improper and intolerant of them to make these kinds of demands. In fact, it's a form of totalitarianism to not do business with anyone who doesn't think exactly like us. As an airbnb guest, I'm respectful of the fact that I'm a guest in someone's home. Their home, their rules. It seems like airbnb is trying to change that dynamic. Now, anyone who wants to be a rude guest can complain about unspecified group think violations. Sad.
- hannob 10y ago
  What's wrong with that? You don't have to use their service. They are not in a situation that they have to provide service to everyone. I don't see a problem when a company says "if you're a racist you're not allowed to use our service".
  - qb8701skq 10y ago
    Indeed people should wake up and just ditch the social-control-freak Silicon Valley companies. For Germany, start with http://www.zwischenmiete.de http://www.zwischenmiete.de . Cheaper, better, less obnoxious than AirBnB. Good riddance.
  - tomohawk 10y ago
    Airbnb is a guest in all the homes they're invited into. Now, they're acting the rude guest, bringing up politics and making demands on how people think. They can certainly do that, but it's pretty dumb. It's taking advantage. It's bullying. I don't see the problem with a company just being tolerant.
  - tnone 10y ago
    Accusations like "racist" mainly flow towards pre-approved victim categories and are commonly used as a blunt weapon in oppression olympics. In those cases, there is no acceptable defense against it, because the reply will be along the lines of "omg, this racist is trying to excuse their racism". Guilty until proven super-guilty. That's why this gets people's bristles up, because it reeks of the "reverse racism isn't real" and "racism requires structural oppression" dogma that has jumped the gap from post modern academia to tech by way of HR departments, always enforced by carefully worded but unmistakably our-way-or-the-highway totalism. If someone wants to be an arbiter of what is right without considering what happens when they are wrong, it's not justice they're after. Outside of the Anglo Saxon sphere, this isn't such a big issue... Yet.

by 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.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Those terms and conditions are meaningless without across the board enforcement.
robrenaud 10y ago
This means that you believe AirBNB will never ban a host for racism?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  No, it means they will ban a couple of hosts to 'set an example' and then move on because there is no money in getting rid of hosts short of the most horrible (and probably press-worthy) cases. This is a typical case of CYA.

Canada 10y ago

True, though I think this is a dick move: "If you cancel your account as a guest, any future reservations you have will be refunded according to the hosts' cancellation policy." So, if you don't agree to this demand by AirBnB that wasn't on the table when you agreed to your booking, then you just lose your money. If AirBnB was fair about this then it would let the user off the hook and pay out any cancellation fees/compensation out of its own funds. It's not like many people aren't going to agree anyway.

dmurray 10y ago
It looks like you can "decline the commitment" but not exercise "the option to cancel your account" according to the language on the announcement. So I think they will let you honour existing bookings without agreeing to the new commitment.
- Canada 10y ago
  You may be right. The wording is ambiguous on whether declining requires cancelation or not. Anyone seen the UI of the agreement dialog yet?

tomohawk 10y ago

This is not the problem. The problem is that Airbnb is making demands on what people do or don't do with their own homes far beyond providing bed and/or breakfast. They're making demands about how people think. My head is not their property. My home is not their property. It's improper and intolerant of them to make these kinds of demands. In fact, it's a form of totalitarianism to not do business with anyone who doesn't think exactly like us. As an airbnb guest, I'm respectful of the fact that I'm a guest in someone's home. Their home, their rules. It seems like airbnb is trying to change that dynamic. Now, anyone who wants to be a rude guest can complain about unspecified group think violations. Sad.

hannob 10y ago
What's wrong with that? You don't have to use their service. They are not in a situation that they have to provide service to everyone. I don't see a problem when a company says "if you're a racist you're not allowed to use our service".
- qb8701skq 10y ago
  Indeed people should wake up and just ditch the social-control-freak Silicon Valley companies. For Germany, start with http://www.zwischenmiete.de http://www.zwischenmiete.de . Cheaper, better, less obnoxious than AirBnB. Good riddance.
- tomohawk 10y ago
  Airbnb is a guest in all the homes they're invited into. Now, they're acting the rude guest, bringing up politics and making demands on how people think. They can certainly do that, but it's pretty dumb. It's taking advantage. It's bullying. I don't see the problem with a company just being tolerant.
- tnone 10y ago
  Accusations like "racist" mainly flow towards pre-approved victim categories and are commonly used as a blunt weapon in oppression olympics. In those cases, there is no acceptable defense against it, because the reply will be along the lines of "omg, this racist is trying to excuse their racism". Guilty until proven super-guilty. That's why this gets people's bristles up, because it reeks of the "reverse racism isn't real" and "racism requires structural oppression" dogma that has jumped the gap from post modern academia to tech by way of HR departments, always enforced by carefully worded but unmistakably our-way-or-the-highway totalism. If someone wants to be an arbiter of what is right without considering what happens when they are wrong, it's not justice they're after. Outside of the Anglo Saxon sphere, this isn't such a big issue... Yet.