6 ms·

If correct, this is very bad. Applying a political filter to deny lodging to people who are visiting for a purpose the corporation does not approve of is a very

by ptero 9y ago

If correct, this is very bad. Applying a political filter to deny lodging to people who are visiting for a purpose the corporation does not approve of is a very bad idea. I could understand if hosts who objected to renting out their own place to someone based on the renter's beliefs that they strongly disagree with; but even this is borderline and the corporation acting as a moral police is, to me, a very bad path for a society to start on.

djtriptych 9y ago
"to start on"? American corporate morality isn't exactly new. Do you mean that no corporation should have moral standards of any kind?
- philipov 9y ago
  Yes, corporations should be unfettered in their pursuit of profit at the expense of their employees and the public good. Corporations engaging in moral behavior is clearly unethical and sets a dangerous precedent!
  - tantalor 9y ago
    You forgot your sarcasm tag.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  Abiding by one's own moral standards is different from enforcing them on others. Of course things get blurry in common-carrier-like cases such as marketplaces, ISPs, postal services, etc.
  - djtriptych 9y ago
    Is it much different from Hacker News deciding what sort of content is appropriate for this forum? Would you be opposed to an airbnb clone that only rented to white supremacists?
    - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      > Is it much different from Hacker News deciding what sort of content is appropriate for this forum? Bad example, because one goes to HN specifically for curated content. > Would you be opposed to an airbnb clone that only rented to white supremacists? Lets run a few variations of this, and try and find a consistent position: Would I be opposed to HN deciding what content is allowed? To a nazi Airbnb clone? To the New York Times deciding what they publish? To every newspaper in Nebraska colluding on which stories they allow? In secret? What if the top 80% of websites, by views, do so? What if Facebook does it? What if your local car dealership doesn't want to sell to communists? What if Toyota doesn't? What if an alliance of car manufacturers representing 98% of global car sales doesn't? What if a taxi service with 5 cabs to it's name refuses to drive Hillary supporters? What if it controls every cab in New York? What if Intel requires you to use their own Linux distro, and bricks your chip otherwise (they warn you before you buy)? In all these cases, the answer is the same - it's only troublesome once the company, corporation, shadowy behind-the-scenes cabal, whatever, gets too big. Once going to a competitor is no longer viable, or very difficult, or something you don't even know you need to do (sure it's easy to go to death2amerikkka.ru/imperialistPigAggressionInSouthAmerica/latestNews/, but you don't know of the site, and have no reason to distrust the CNN/Fox talking heads parroting the government's position). So to answer your second question - no (at least not beyond 'they shouldn't have done that, but I guess it's their right'), but only if there are viable alternatives for renters. When not using their service becomes very disadvantageous, I'd be very opposed. Of course being opposed doesn't say much - a better question is, what should be done about it? The answer is known, but neglected - fire up the dusty antitrust laws, and do what was done to Bell and Standard Oil - don't just prevent mergers, but break up the companies. Sorry for the wall of text - I try to be concise, but failed in this case. Maybe next time ask easier questions.
danesparza 9y ago
Apparently you need to read the Airbnb terms of service a bit more closely: https://www.airbnb.com/terms#sec14 https://www.airbnb.com/terms#sec14 Under "Prohibited Activities": "14.1 You are solely responsible for compliance with any and all laws, rules, regulations, and Tax obligations that may apply to your use of the Airbnb Platform. In connection with your use of the Airbnb Platform, you will not and will not assist or enable others to: ... discriminate against or harass anyone on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, physical or mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age or sexual orientation, or otherwise engage in any abusive or disruptive behavior"
- soniman 9y ago
  I don't use AirBnB but doesn't the service cater to people who only want to rent to "their kind" of people? What is AirBnB going to say to a host who only rents to college educated couples over thirty years old? Isn't that the whole AirBnB business model?
freehunter 9y ago
Disagree. This happens everywhere, all the time, on all levels of the political spectrum. Why is it only bad now that the left is doing it? Why wasn't it "a very bad path" when Hobby Lobby make the government give them an exemption from providing full health care to their employees? Why isn't is "a very bad path" when companies fire employees for being gay, or not hiring employees because they are black or hispanic or a woman? Is it a "very bad path" when a company refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, or when a church refuses to have a ceremony for a gay couple? Why is it you always hear people saying "this is crossing a line" when the left does something that the right has been doing for years?
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  Is it really useful to slap a left or right label on those examples? I heard plenty of uproar about all the "right" stories you referenced and all the response were the same as the "left" stories; "well, it's a free country and it's their right to do that but it's gonna offend some people and might ultimately be bad for business." There are organizations people tend to view as "above all that non-sense" until they do something stupid, then you see phrases like "very bad path", "slippery slope", "fine line". Then there are organizations people expect might take extreme stances on certain topics and no one is really surprised when they do it. People still talk about it when it happens but it quickly dissolves into something like "well, I'm never going to convince them what they're doing is bad and I was never going to buy their cake anyway. Best I can do is not be that way myself." If there's anything to polarize on it's probably reach of the organization. Actions by organizations that have no direct effect on most peoples lives won't get talked about for very long. When it's a organization that provides a global service with little competition, people get more concerned. But even reach isn't a good divider. Most organizations don't accomplish global reach without first promising things like equality and fairness, but some do, some even promise to do "bad" things. So maybe people's reactions to events like this are more about broken promises.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    I'm trying to highlight two things: one this isn't "a bad path" that we're "starting on". We've been here for a long time. The second thing is, if you think this is "just starting", either you haven't been paying attention or you don't think those other things are a "dangerous path". Basically he's saying that a company refusing to do business with a white supremacist is crossing a line that was not crossed when gays, blacks, hispanics, or women had the exact same treatment. This amounts to one thing: if you're drawing your line in the sand at the persecution of neo-nazis knowing full well that gays, minorities, and women are on the "no protection" side of that line, you might be a neo-nazi yourself. There is no question on what type of outrage ptero is expressing. The only way to read that comment is that he's disappointed that people he agrees with are finally being persecuted.

by ptero 9y ago

djtriptych 9y ago

"to start on"? American corporate morality isn't exactly new. Do you mean that no corporation should have moral standards of any kind?

philipov 9y ago
Yes, corporations should be unfettered in their pursuit of profit at the expense of their employees and the public good. Corporations engaging in moral behavior is clearly unethical and sets a dangerous precedent!
- tantalor 9y ago
  You forgot your sarcasm tag.
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
Abiding by one's own moral standards is different from enforcing them on others. Of course things get blurry in common-carrier-like cases such as marketplaces, ISPs, postal services, etc.
- djtriptych 9y ago
  Is it much different from Hacker News deciding what sort of content is appropriate for this forum? Would you be opposed to an airbnb clone that only rented to white supremacists?
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    > Is it much different from Hacker News deciding what sort of content is appropriate for this forum? Bad example, because one goes to HN specifically for curated content. > Would you be opposed to an airbnb clone that only rented to white supremacists? Lets run a few variations of this, and try and find a consistent position: Would I be opposed to HN deciding what content is allowed? To a nazi Airbnb clone? To the New York Times deciding what they publish? To every newspaper in Nebraska colluding on which stories they allow? In secret? What if the top 80% of websites, by views, do so? What if Facebook does it? What if your local car dealership doesn't want to sell to communists? What if Toyota doesn't? What if an alliance of car manufacturers representing 98% of global car sales doesn't? What if a taxi service with 5 cabs to it's name refuses to drive Hillary supporters? What if it controls every cab in New York? What if Intel requires you to use their own Linux distro, and bricks your chip otherwise (they warn you before you buy)? In all these cases, the answer is the same - it's only troublesome once the company, corporation, shadowy behind-the-scenes cabal, whatever, gets too big. Once going to a competitor is no longer viable, or very difficult, or something you don't even know you need to do (sure it's easy to go to death2amerikkka.ru/imperialistPigAggressionInSouthAmerica/latestNews/, but you don't know of the site, and have no reason to distrust the CNN/Fox talking heads parroting the government's position). So to answer your second question - no (at least not beyond 'they shouldn't have done that, but I guess it's their right'), but only if there are viable alternatives for renters. When not using their service becomes very disadvantageous, I'd be very opposed. Of course being opposed doesn't say much - a better question is, what should be done about it? The answer is known, but neglected - fire up the dusty antitrust laws, and do what was done to Bell and Standard Oil - don't just prevent mergers, but break up the companies. Sorry for the wall of text - I try to be concise, but failed in this case. Maybe next time ask easier questions.

danesparza 9y ago

Apparently you need to read the Airbnb terms of service a bit more closely: https://www.airbnb.com/terms#sec14 https://www.airbnb.com/terms#sec14 Under "Prohibited Activities": "14.1 You are solely responsible for compliance with any and all laws, rules, regulations, and Tax obligations that may apply to your use of the Airbnb Platform. In connection with your use of the Airbnb Platform, you will not and will not assist or enable others to: ... discriminate against or harass anyone on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, physical or mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age or sexual orientation, or otherwise engage in any abusive or disruptive behavior"

soniman 9y ago
I don't use AirBnB but doesn't the service cater to people who only want to rent to "their kind" of people? What is AirBnB going to say to a host who only rents to college educated couples over thirty years old? Isn't that the whole AirBnB business model?

freehunter 9y ago

Disagree. This happens everywhere, all the time, on all levels of the political spectrum. Why is it only bad now that the left is doing it? Why wasn't it "a very bad path" when Hobby Lobby make the government give them an exemption from providing full health care to their employees? Why isn't is "a very bad path" when companies fire employees for being gay, or not hiring employees because they are black or hispanic or a woman? Is it a "very bad path" when a company refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, or when a church refuses to have a ceremony for a gay couple? Why is it you always hear people saying "this is crossing a line" when the left does something that the right has been doing for years?

jasonkostempski 9y ago
Is it really useful to slap a left or right label on those examples? I heard plenty of uproar about all the "right" stories you referenced and all the response were the same as the "left" stories; "well, it's a free country and it's their right to do that but it's gonna offend some people and might ultimately be bad for business." There are organizations people tend to view as "above all that non-sense" until they do something stupid, then you see phrases like "very bad path", "slippery slope", "fine line". Then there are organizations people expect might take extreme stances on certain topics and no one is really surprised when they do it. People still talk about it when it happens but it quickly dissolves into something like "well, I'm never going to convince them what they're doing is bad and I was never going to buy their cake anyway. Best I can do is not be that way myself." If there's anything to polarize on it's probably reach of the organization. Actions by organizations that have no direct effect on most peoples lives won't get talked about for very long. When it's a organization that provides a global service with little competition, people get more concerned. But even reach isn't a good divider. Most organizations don't accomplish global reach without first promising things like equality and fairness, but some do, some even promise to do "bad" things. So maybe people's reactions to events like this are more about broken promises.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I'm trying to highlight two things: one this isn't "a bad path" that we're "starting on". We've been here for a long time. The second thing is, if you think this is "just starting", either you haven't been paying attention or you don't think those other things are a "dangerous path". Basically he's saying that a company refusing to do business with a white supremacist is crossing a line that was not crossed when gays, blacks, hispanics, or women had the exact same treatment. This amounts to one thing: if you're drawing your line in the sand at the persecution of neo-nazis knowing full well that gays, minorities, and women are on the "no protection" side of that line, you might be a neo-nazi yourself. There is no question on what type of outrage ptero is expressing. The only way to read that comment is that he's disappointed that people he agrees with are finally being persecuted.