I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your argument. But I think the use of the world "evil" here is really bad - it's both wrong, in my mind, and is also

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your argument. But I think the use of the world "evil" here is really bad - it's both wrong, in my mind, and is also hurting your case, because people who can be convinced of it might be put off by insisting that "no, it's evil". I mean, evil implies a lot of things - it implies this is done intentionally. It implies that anyone working at Airbnb is by association evil. It implies that there is no working with Airbnb. Whereas if we thought about it more neutrally, we'd have both much clearer remedies, and a much more appealing argument. Instead of "Airbnb is evil, because is facilitates...", we could say "Airbnb causes problems, because it facilitates...". Therefore the solution could be to regulate it in some way. It sounds a lot more silly to say "X is evil, so the solution is to regulate it". EDIT: I know that you were using the word evil because of the gp, and I disagree with their use of it just as much. I also disagree with gp's point, that it's an "either/or" on who is really evil in this situation.