3 ms·

Their choice of who to deny services to and why is unaccountable unless they're breaking specific laws. But the standard for punishment shouldn't be "negative"

Their choice of who to deny services to and why is unaccountable unless they're breaking specific laws. But the standard for punishment shouldn't be "negative" in this way; there should be positive proof and legal justification for punishment, rather than being free to punish barring any specific legal basis against it. And yes, Airbnb denying these guys access is punishment when you're a national entity and the only one of its kind.

danso 9y ago
The legal justification for Airbnb or any other company to refuse service comes from what you state in your first sentence: they aren't breaking specific laws. Is there a law that private entities have no say in how they want to conduct their business? Should HN mods be taken to court every time they ban users and kill discussion threads? Airbnb is not "the only one of its kind." If you look up the origin story of the company, or do a google search for their legal battles with cities and states, you'll learn that they very much do have competing alternatives, including the entire hotel industry.
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  It's interesting when people do and don't cite legal justification as the final consideration. It should be clear that I'm not concerned with the current legality.
  - danso 9y ago
    It's interesting that you think "legal justification" is being used as the "final consideration", which would imply that legal justifications are ever final in a legal system that is meant to oversee the rights and well-being of 300 million different people. Moral beliefs change, governmental systems evolve, laws take time to pass. You're complaining about why there is or isn't a law, but then you want to take this debate out of the reality from which laws exist in the first place. That sounds about as fun and productive as arguing computational implementations with someone who doesn't believe in the relevance of time or physics. edit: replaced "computational theories" with "computational implementations"
    - hackinthebochs 9y ago
      You seem to have misunderstood my point. My point was that people cite the law when the law happens to allow their preferred state of affairs, and cite morality when it doesn't. In this case, the worthwhile debate isn't what the law says, but what it should be. When you respond to my argument about what should or shouldn't be by citing the law, you've severely missed the point.

danso 9y ago

The legal justification for Airbnb or any other company to refuse service comes from what you state in your first sentence: they aren't breaking specific laws. Is there a law that private entities have no say in how they want to conduct their business? Should HN mods be taken to court every time they ban users and kill discussion threads? Airbnb is not "the only one of its kind." If you look up the origin story of the company, or do a google search for their legal battles with cities and states, you'll learn that they very much do have competing alternatives, including the entire hotel industry.

hackinthebochs 9y ago
It's interesting when people do and don't cite legal justification as the final consideration. It should be clear that I'm not concerned with the current legality.
- danso 9y ago
  It's interesting that you think "legal justification" is being used as the "final consideration", which would imply that legal justifications are ever final in a legal system that is meant to oversee the rights and well-being of 300 million different people. Moral beliefs change, governmental systems evolve, laws take time to pass. You're complaining about why there is or isn't a law, but then you want to take this debate out of the reality from which laws exist in the first place. That sounds about as fun and productive as arguing computational implementations with someone who doesn't believe in the relevance of time or physics. edit: replaced "computational theories" with "computational implementations"
  - hackinthebochs 9y ago
    You seem to have misunderstood my point. My point was that people cite the law when the law happens to allow their preferred state of affairs, and cite morality when it doesn't. In this case, the worthwhile debate isn't what the law says, but what it should be. When you respond to my argument about what should or shouldn't be by citing the law, you've severely missed the point.