It sounds like they're pushing back because if there's a list of taxes paid (with specific addresses), then municipalities may harass owners, even if they're co

It sounds like they're pushing back because if there's a list of taxes paid (with specific addresses), then municipalities may harass owners, even if they're complying with local laws[1]. There's also the meta level issue that holding site operators responsible for the actions of their users is a very slippery slope. Anything that chips away at the communications decency act could have terrible effects for the internet as we know it[2]. For example, as it currently stands if I were to libelously claim that Paul Graham has a meth lab in his basement[3], I could be charged with a crime, but not HN. If the CDA were weakened, blog operators could be liable for comments posted on them. I don't think anyone reasonable wants that. I think SF's law did a good job balancing things - hosts need to be licensed by the city (the app lists their license #) and can IIRC only lease 90 days out of the year. I looked at a recent receipt for a stay, and they even collected taxes. [1] https://www.eff.org/mention/making-civil-liberties-case-airbnb https://www.eff.org/mention/making-civil-liberties-case-airb... [2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Airbnb-HomeAway-would-police-rentals-under-7306756.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Airbnb-HomeAway... [3] To be clear this is a hyperbolic example, and I have no reason to think PaulG has anything illegal in his basement :)