11 ms·

Whether its illegal sublets or unlicensed minicabs, you can't operate a business designed to evade regulation without that attitude eventually permeating its en

by gaius 9y ago

Whether its illegal sublets or unlicensed minicabs, you can't operate a business designed to evade regulation without that attitude eventually permeating its entire corporate culture. Welcome to "disruption".

XJOKOLAT 9y ago
Boom. Thank you.
patrickaljord 9y ago
What about arbitrary regulations that were designed to artificially limit supply and increase prices on customers and the fact that these regulations won't go away because too few people know about them and there's a lobby giving millions to law makers to make sure they won't go away? How is that not corruption in anything but in name? How can Airbnb and others fight against these corrupt regulations when they were design to keep new comers and innovators out and incumbents in? It's a dirty game and if you want to play, or change things, you have to get dirty too. I'm glad they're doing it. Same as when you prohibit drug or alcool, it's still going to happen but way more dirty. Who's to blame though? Willing adults who want to partake peacefully in their preferred activities or regulators armed with guns trying to prevent from doing these peaceful things? Hm...
- dilemma 9y ago
  You're talking about housing which is a business Airbnb is not in.
  - ljw1001 9y ago
    If anything, Airbnb is in the business of converting housing to hotel space. Many units are hosted by people who buy them to rent to tourists, reducing the housing stock.
- pille 9y ago
  Airbnb is a profit-seeking corporation, not a public interest group. They're not out to fight the good fight against "arbitrary regulation" any more than hotels are being evil by supporting it. If you don't like the law, you can vote, run for office, volunteer, donate to a candidate or nonprofit, or bother your elected officials. I'm no fan of lobbying ("corruption in anything but name"—sweetheart gigs for sympathetic representatives once they get out of office), but it's legal for AirBnb to do this too.
  - patrickaljord 9y ago
    > They're not out to fight the good fight against "arbitrary regulation" any more than hotels are being evil by supporting it. They are actually in effect. > If you don't like the law, you can vote Sorry, I stopped believing in the Statist religion a while ago so this argument doesn't work on me. This is as effective to me as a religious person telling me "If you want things to improve just pray for it".
  - lacampbell 9y ago
    If you don't like the law, you can vote, run for office, volunteer, donate to a candidate or nonprofit, or bother your elected officials. In reality, you can do two things about it; 1. Like it 2. Absolutely nothing This myth that an honest individual with good intentions can somehow influence the system is harmful and needs to die. If you're not a huge corporation or lobby group, your chances of getting a law changed is for all intents and purposes zero.
    - bigbugbag 9y ago
      Aaron Schwartz, pipa and sopa.
    - pille 9y ago
      I'd take the word "can" out of your first sentence, but I do agree with you in general. Airbnb, however, is a huge corporation with lots and lots of money. It's not a myth for them.
      - 9y ago
- rfrey 9y ago
  Which regulations are you thinking of in your first sentence? In my view the limitation on use of residential units as hotel units simply recognizes the externalities involved - externalities that Airbnb hosts are now throwing into the commons and profiting from. Other regulations, like more stringent fire codes for hotels, signage to fire escapes, sprinkler systems etc. are paid for with blood, not lobbyists. You may have other regulations in mind though, that I don't know about.
- jancsika 9y ago
  I'm confused-- in which scope does the descriptor "artificially" operate? 1. The set of all arbitrary regulations which aim to limit supply. 2. The set of all arbitrary regulations which have the consequence of limiting supply. 3. The set of all arbitrary regulations which could conceivably have the consequence of limiting supply at any time in the future. 4. The set of all regulations which aim to limit supply. 5. The set of all regulations which have the consequence of limiting supply. 6. The set of all regulations which could conceivably have the consequence of limiting supply at any time in the future. 7. The set of all regulations. If it's #1 and only ever #1, I'm with you.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mowenz 9y ago
You are making a leap from "illegal" to "toxic" or to "terrible," while those are not the same.
- pooper 9y ago
  People often mistakes law and ethics. Although with Airbnb, I'm not sure if I would give them the benefit of the doubt. While I agree that not all things illegal is toxic or terrible, knowing what we know about "disruptive" companies and the persona behind them, I think it is a safe bet in this case.
  - mowenz 9y ago
    >While I agree that not all things illegal is toxic or terrible, knowing what we know about "disruptive" companies and the persona behind them, I think it is a safe bet in this case Well whether or not it is a safe bet (and I dont necessarily disagree), what I didagree with is the illogical reasoning I mentioned above, and also that you are making the bet on the stereotype of a persona.
    - pooper 9y ago
      I'm trying to not say anything particularly bad about particular people but here it goes https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hxgkyezm-bU https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hxgkyezm-bU Tell me if you think that they believe in any of the lofty things they're talking about. No, they don't. The culture permeates top down. (Good thing I'm not a judge)
      - mowenz 9y ago
        I'm not disagreeing or even commenting on the conclusion... I'm cmmenting about the method.
  - tomhoward 9y ago
    Although with Airbnb, I'm not sure if I would give them the benefit of the doubt. What makes you say that? What instances of conduct from Airbnb's founders or senior management can you cite that indicate a propensity for unethical or immoral behaviour? And perhaps more pertinently: given that the ubiquity of the internet made it inevitable that a major marketplace would emerge that made it easier for people to conduct short-term property rentals online, and that this would inevitably clash with pre-internet regulatory frameworks, can you describe how Airbnb should have conducted themselves more ethically? My perspective: through my involvement in YC, I know the Airbnb founders well enough to know what well-intentioned and good-natured (i.e., friendly, supportive and nice) people they are, whilst not being personally close enough to them to have any loyalties that would prevent me from being critical where it is warranted. From that point of view, I can say there have been instances where Airbnb have made missteps or taken things a step too far in their pursuit of growth and success, but there is no consistent pattern of pathological or deeply unethical behaviour. What do you have that would counter this?
wareis 9y ago
This is total bullshit. Many many years ago I was working in for-profit warez group, and this job after twenty years remains absolutely the best I ever had. Basically the reason that I, after several trials to land a normal IT or startup job, became nauseaus and went away from any office to freelancing..
- Malwarethrow 9y ago
  Throwaway for obvious reasons. My first "job" was building a "crypter" and exploit pack with a team of very talented re/xdev folks. It was a great time.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Perhaps being downright illegal is different from 'evading regulation'
  - noway421 9y ago
    This indeed seems to have correlation. The more legal business is, the worse its culture is. /s
    - eru 9y ago
      There might actually be more to it, if you generalize slightly: Banks have big moats of enormous regulation that any would-be upstart competitor would have abide by. Hence they are more 'legal' just counted by number of regulations they comply with. Banks ain't great places to work for. (But I don't think you can build a good rule out of that. I think what determines a great culture more is how high the opportunity cost is for employees to just go and get a new job that at least as good. Googlers can just walk away, and get a decent job anywhere else: so Google has to treat them nicely. Retail assistants in depressed East Germany in the 90s had almost no other options, especially since legislation basically forced companies to pay above market clearing rate; you can imagine what bosses got away with on such a captive labour supply.)
  - taneq 9y ago
    Could be. Downright illegal is more honest, 'skirting the rules' is weaselly.
dominotw 9y ago
every comment like this on HN is followed by 'then stay in a hotel' followed by same regulation bad/good back and forth. Welcome to HN

by gaius 9y ago

XJOKOLAT 9y ago

Boom. Thank you.

patrickaljord 9y ago

What about arbitrary regulations that were designed to artificially limit supply and increase prices on customers and the fact that these regulations won't go away because too few people know about them and there's a lobby giving millions to law makers to make sure they won't go away? How is that not corruption in anything but in name? How can Airbnb and others fight against these corrupt regulations when they were design to keep new comers and innovators out and incumbents in? It's a dirty game and if you want to play, or change things, you have to get dirty too. I'm glad they're doing it. Same as when you prohibit drug or alcool, it's still going to happen but way more dirty. Who's to blame though? Willing adults who want to partake peacefully in their preferred activities or regulators armed with guns trying to prevent from doing these peaceful things? Hm...

dilemma 9y ago
You're talking about housing which is a business Airbnb is not in.
- ljw1001 9y ago
  If anything, Airbnb is in the business of converting housing to hotel space. Many units are hosted by people who buy them to rent to tourists, reducing the housing stock.
pille 9y ago
Airbnb is a profit-seeking corporation, not a public interest group. They're not out to fight the good fight against "arbitrary regulation" any more than hotels are being evil by supporting it. If you don't like the law, you can vote, run for office, volunteer, donate to a candidate or nonprofit, or bother your elected officials. I'm no fan of lobbying ("corruption in anything but name"—sweetheart gigs for sympathetic representatives once they get out of office), but it's legal for AirBnb to do this too.
- patrickaljord 9y ago
  > They're not out to fight the good fight against "arbitrary regulation" any more than hotels are being evil by supporting it. They are actually in effect. > If you don't like the law, you can vote Sorry, I stopped believing in the Statist religion a while ago so this argument doesn't work on me. This is as effective to me as a religious person telling me "If you want things to improve just pray for it".
- lacampbell 9y ago
  If you don't like the law, you can vote, run for office, volunteer, donate to a candidate or nonprofit, or bother your elected officials. In reality, you can do two things about it; 1. Like it 2. Absolutely nothing This myth that an honest individual with good intentions can somehow influence the system is harmful and needs to die. If you're not a huge corporation or lobby group, your chances of getting a law changed is for all intents and purposes zero.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Aaron Schwartz, pipa and sopa.
  - pille 9y ago
    I'd take the word "can" out of your first sentence, but I do agree with you in general. Airbnb, however, is a huge corporation with lots and lots of money. It's not a myth for them.
    - 9y ago
rfrey 9y ago
Which regulations are you thinking of in your first sentence? In my view the limitation on use of residential units as hotel units simply recognizes the externalities involved - externalities that Airbnb hosts are now throwing into the commons and profiting from. Other regulations, like more stringent fire codes for hotels, signage to fire escapes, sprinkler systems etc. are paid for with blood, not lobbyists. You may have other regulations in mind though, that I don't know about.
jancsika 9y ago
I'm confused-- in which scope does the descriptor "artificially" operate? 1. The set of all arbitrary regulations which aim to limit supply. 2. The set of all arbitrary regulations which have the consequence of limiting supply. 3. The set of all arbitrary regulations which could conceivably have the consequence of limiting supply at any time in the future. 4. The set of all regulations which aim to limit supply. 5. The set of all regulations which have the consequence of limiting supply. 6. The set of all regulations which could conceivably have the consequence of limiting supply at any time in the future. 7. The set of all regulations. If it's #1 and only ever #1, I'm with you.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mowenz 9y ago

You are making a leap from "illegal" to "toxic" or to "terrible," while those are not the same.

pooper 9y ago
People often mistakes law and ethics. Although with Airbnb, I'm not sure if I would give them the benefit of the doubt. While I agree that not all things illegal is toxic or terrible, knowing what we know about "disruptive" companies and the persona behind them, I think it is a safe bet in this case.
- mowenz 9y ago
  >While I agree that not all things illegal is toxic or terrible, knowing what we know about "disruptive" companies and the persona behind them, I think it is a safe bet in this case Well whether or not it is a safe bet (and I dont necessarily disagree), what I didagree with is the illogical reasoning I mentioned above, and also that you are making the bet on the stereotype of a persona.
  - pooper 9y ago
    I'm trying to not say anything particularly bad about particular people but here it goes https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hxgkyezm-bU https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hxgkyezm-bU Tell me if you think that they believe in any of the lofty things they're talking about. No, they don't. The culture permeates top down. (Good thing I'm not a judge)
    - mowenz 9y ago
      I'm not disagreeing or even commenting on the conclusion... I'm cmmenting about the method.
- tomhoward 9y ago
  Although with Airbnb, I'm not sure if I would give them the benefit of the doubt. What makes you say that? What instances of conduct from Airbnb's founders or senior management can you cite that indicate a propensity for unethical or immoral behaviour? And perhaps more pertinently: given that the ubiquity of the internet made it inevitable that a major marketplace would emerge that made it easier for people to conduct short-term property rentals online, and that this would inevitably clash with pre-internet regulatory frameworks, can you describe how Airbnb should have conducted themselves more ethically? My perspective: through my involvement in YC, I know the Airbnb founders well enough to know what well-intentioned and good-natured (i.e., friendly, supportive and nice) people they are, whilst not being personally close enough to them to have any loyalties that would prevent me from being critical where it is warranted. From that point of view, I can say there have been instances where Airbnb have made missteps or taken things a step too far in their pursuit of growth and success, but there is no consistent pattern of pathological or deeply unethical behaviour. What do you have that would counter this?

wareis 9y ago

This is total bullshit. Many many years ago I was working in for-profit warez group, and this job after twenty years remains absolutely the best I ever had. Basically the reason that I, after several trials to land a normal IT or startup job, became nauseaus and went away from any office to freelancing..

Malwarethrow 9y ago
Throwaway for obvious reasons. My first "job" was building a "crypter" and exploit pack with a team of very talented re/xdev folks. It was a great time.
oh_sigh 9y ago
Perhaps being downright illegal is different from 'evading regulation'
- noway421 9y ago
  This indeed seems to have correlation. The more legal business is, the worse its culture is. /s
  - eru 9y ago
    There might actually be more to it, if you generalize slightly: Banks have big moats of enormous regulation that any would-be upstart competitor would have abide by. Hence they are more 'legal' just counted by number of regulations they comply with. Banks ain't great places to work for. (But I don't think you can build a good rule out of that. I think what determines a great culture more is how high the opportunity cost is for employees to just go and get a new job that at least as good. Googlers can just walk away, and get a decent job anywhere else: so Google has to treat them nicely. Retail assistants in depressed East Germany in the 90s had almost no other options, especially since legislation basically forced companies to pay above market clearing rate; you can imagine what bosses got away with on such a captive labour supply.)
- taneq 9y ago
  Could be. Downright illegal is more honest, 'skirting the rules' is weaselly.

dominotw 9y ago

every comment like this on HN is followed by 'then stay in a hotel' followed by same regulation bad/good back and forth. Welcome to HN