4 ms·

My point is they call AirBnB out specifically when they're not the only ones that have this issue and that could be used to do this. They even state in the art

by zodPod 9y ago

My point is they call AirBnB out specifically when they're not the only ones that have this issue and that could be used to do this. They even state in the article that AirBnB is just being used as an example and many services could be seeing this kind of usage. If that's the case, why call out AirBnB specifically? That company gets so much flack for the way its users act. I'm not sure what it's expected to do in many of these cases.

kerkeslager 9y ago
> That company gets so much flack for the way its users act. Gig economy companies blur the line between user and employee. If a hotel chain had a problem with its hotel managers laundering money, would you be saying this? What you're saying here is tantamount to claiming that AirBnB isn't responsible for its employees' actions because they didn't bother to vet their employees. Companies aren't simply exempt from laws because their business model refers to their employees as "users".
- headShrinker 9y ago
  The gig economy is individuals leveraging their time and personal assets to make money. They aren’t employees, just like a musician playing a pub isn’t an employee. purpose of a company to provide a product or service on a scale larger than one person could provide. A company’s primary goal isn’t to police employees the same way Facebook isn’t responsible for the content I write on their website. They have some duty to clean up afterwords but they do very little in the way of supervision. If someone does an investigation and finds criminal behavior the company has a responsibility to report that behavior to authorities. A company wants to avoid damaging its reputation over something like a laundering scheme. The Uber and Airbnb model is more like a credit card gateway for a specific industry and their ideal user is, ‘I’m an individual who does whatever I want with my time and property and I would like to make some money on the side’ that is not an employee’s mindset. Its a little upsetting that there are people who are more invested in their Airbnb and Uber status therefore claim employee status. If my YouTube channel takes off and I make a bunch of money on views can I claim employee status at yt? Clearly the answer is no
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    Eh, user and employee are just labels used to communicate a narrative; there's no objective truth in either one. The point is, the hotel industry is structured such that it solves this problem. If we're allowing AirBnB to disrupt the hotel industry, we need to address the same problems. The gig economy claims to be more efficient, but it's not more efficient in the context of society if it's merely offloading parts of the problem it solves onto other parts of society.
    - headShrinker 9y ago
      > user and employee are just labels used to communicate a narrative; there's no objective truth in either one. I completely disagree. A company vets and makes a pledge to a employee, there is commitment in the form of promised work and potential advancement. Employees have a work future and maybe the potential grow. Consults, Ehem I mean, "Users" are here now and understand that once they finish this single task in accordance with any contract, or task list they are done. They are free to leave and there is no promise to stay. A company has no responsibility to a user or consultant other than all civil caselaw, don't slander, impersonate, discriminate, stalk, etc. 'For hire' work is compensated on in the agreed upon terms. Something to the extent of "There is no guaranty for future or ongoing work. You are compensated for the services and time you have rendered. Compensation changes must be agreed upon by both parties." 'For hire' contracts, TOS, consultant contracts are not employee contracts.
      - kerkeslager 9y ago
        No one is confused about what the word "consultant" means; you don't need to explain it. Your narrative (and Uber's) is that all Uber has to do to abdicate all the responsibilities that society previously demanded from a cab company is declare that they will make their drivers consultants. Obviously Uber drivers as they are now are consultants, but it's far from clear that this is beneficial for riders, drivers, society as a whole, or anyone other than Uber. I am unconvinced that we should accept Uber's narrative and allow them to make their drivers consultants.
  - 9y ago
- mcherm 9y ago
  It all comes down to whether or not you think the owners of property rented out via AirBnB are, in fact, "employees". How about eBay or Etsy... are people who sell things via those platforms "employees" of the platform? If so, then you have an odd definition of "employee". If not, then where do you draw the distinction?
- zodPod 9y ago
  You could say the same thing about any company that skims an amount from the charges that happen on their platform. Paypal/eBay, Patreon, Amazon, etsy, etc. I'm more confused as to why AirBnB gets singled out so frequently.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
EnFinlay 9y ago
The story is about a way that a specific company is potentially being used for money laundering. There's no calling them out. Calling them out would be "Online fraud costs $X billion a year" and then only giving examples of AirBnB. To put it differently, the story is that this is happening to AirBnB, the fact that happens to others is not important. Not every story is about the fully zoomed out overarching issue.
hkmurakami 9y ago
Why do you think users complain vocally about Paypal's antifraud policy frequently freezing their accounts? (ex: Pycon) Because Paypal actually gives a damn about it because they know that they could get seriously compromised through government intervention if they don't police it.

by zodPod 9y ago

kerkeslager 9y ago

> That company gets so much flack for the way its users act. Gig economy companies blur the line between user and employee. If a hotel chain had a problem with its hotel managers laundering money, would you be saying this? What you're saying here is tantamount to claiming that AirBnB isn't responsible for its employees' actions because they didn't bother to vet their employees. Companies aren't simply exempt from laws because their business model refers to their employees as "users".

headShrinker 9y ago
The gig economy is individuals leveraging their time and personal assets to make money. They aren’t employees, just like a musician playing a pub isn’t an employee. purpose of a company to provide a product or service on a scale larger than one person could provide. A company’s primary goal isn’t to police employees the same way Facebook isn’t responsible for the content I write on their website. They have some duty to clean up afterwords but they do very little in the way of supervision. If someone does an investigation and finds criminal behavior the company has a responsibility to report that behavior to authorities. A company wants to avoid damaging its reputation over something like a laundering scheme. The Uber and Airbnb model is more like a credit card gateway for a specific industry and their ideal user is, ‘I’m an individual who does whatever I want with my time and property and I would like to make some money on the side’ that is not an employee’s mindset. Its a little upsetting that there are people who are more invested in their Airbnb and Uber status therefore claim employee status. If my YouTube channel takes off and I make a bunch of money on views can I claim employee status at yt? Clearly the answer is no
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  Eh, user and employee are just labels used to communicate a narrative; there's no objective truth in either one. The point is, the hotel industry is structured such that it solves this problem. If we're allowing AirBnB to disrupt the hotel industry, we need to address the same problems. The gig economy claims to be more efficient, but it's not more efficient in the context of society if it's merely offloading parts of the problem it solves onto other parts of society.
  - headShrinker 9y ago
    > user and employee are just labels used to communicate a narrative; there's no objective truth in either one. I completely disagree. A company vets and makes a pledge to a employee, there is commitment in the form of promised work and potential advancement. Employees have a work future and maybe the potential grow. Consults, Ehem I mean, "Users" are here now and understand that once they finish this single task in accordance with any contract, or task list they are done. They are free to leave and there is no promise to stay. A company has no responsibility to a user or consultant other than all civil caselaw, don't slander, impersonate, discriminate, stalk, etc. 'For hire' work is compensated on in the agreed upon terms. Something to the extent of "There is no guaranty for future or ongoing work. You are compensated for the services and time you have rendered. Compensation changes must be agreed upon by both parties." 'For hire' contracts, TOS, consultant contracts are not employee contracts.
    - kerkeslager 9y ago
      No one is confused about what the word "consultant" means; you don't need to explain it. Your narrative (and Uber's) is that all Uber has to do to abdicate all the responsibilities that society previously demanded from a cab company is declare that they will make their drivers consultants. Obviously Uber drivers as they are now are consultants, but it's far from clear that this is beneficial for riders, drivers, society as a whole, or anyone other than Uber. I am unconvinced that we should accept Uber's narrative and allow them to make their drivers consultants.
- 9y ago
mcherm 9y ago
It all comes down to whether or not you think the owners of property rented out via AirBnB are, in fact, "employees". How about eBay or Etsy... are people who sell things via those platforms "employees" of the platform? If so, then you have an odd definition of "employee". If not, then where do you draw the distinction?
zodPod 9y ago
You could say the same thing about any company that skims an amount from the charges that happen on their platform. Paypal/eBay, Patreon, Amazon, etsy, etc. I'm more confused as to why AirBnB gets singled out so frequently.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

EnFinlay 9y ago

The story is about a way that a specific company is potentially being used for money laundering. There's no calling them out. Calling them out would be "Online fraud costs $X billion a year" and then only giving examples of AirBnB. To put it differently, the story is that this is happening to AirBnB, the fact that happens to others is not important. Not every story is about the fully zoomed out overarching issue.

hkmurakami 9y ago

Why do you think users complain vocally about Paypal's antifraud policy frequently freezing their accounts? (ex: Pycon) Because Paypal actually gives a damn about it because they know that they could get seriously compromised through government intervention if they don't police it.