8 ms·
Digital Exile: How I Got Banned for Life from Airbnb (2018)
- derision 7y agoBoo hoo? Sounds like the author was the one mostly in the wrong here. Getting banned from Airbnb is inconsequential.
- blunte 7y agoAre you ------- kidding? Did you read the explanation? [edit - removed inappropriate language]
- shiftpgdn 7y agoDid you read the article at all? He is upset for being banned and not given any details or any chance to try to fix what they think was a wrong doing (leaving a review not on the Airbnb platform.)
- derision 7y agoA company has the right to draft whatever Terms of Service they want. They don't have to tell you why they're removing you from their platform. It's not a public service. He violated the Terms of Service, and they took appropriate action. The host made a mistake in coming early, but it sounds like this guy blew it way out of the water. He knew in advance the place he was staying in was a day spa and there'd be some service interruption. This really reads like an entitled guy who didn't want to follow the rules. Airbnb isn't a public or necessary service. There are hotels, there are other hosting platforms.
- hgoel 7y agoI don't see why you're getting so defensive and making meaningless arguments when the entire point of the article is that the current arrangement isn't that great for consumers. Yes, they're well within their rights to ban you, but it's terrible for consumers to not even get an explanation as to what rule you violated.
- welly 7y agoYes it is terrible. Annoying and frustrating. But fuck Air BNB. Go somewhere else and ensure your friends/family do the same. That's what I'd do if I got shitty service from anyone.
- derision 7y agoBecause I believe in liberty. If I wanted to create a content hosting platform for example, I would want to reserve the right to ban people without notice and without recourse. I'm in the business of hosting content I want to host, not in the business of arguing with people on whether or not their content is appropriate. There are many other platforms to choose from.
- ptcampbell 7y agoWhat a cynical viewpoint. Airbnb’s response is troubling whether you find this particular case egregious or not. You may not think of accommodation as a public or necessary service. But consumers still deserve protection from unjust practices. To view the situation as a simple transaction governed by opaque and ever-shifting Terms of Service Agreements sounds pretty dystopian to me.
- hknd 7y agoGetting banned, and not getting any explanation from support sucks big times. Hope someone from Airbnb Support reads this and can help out.
- blunte 7y agoThis is a wake up call. Whether it's Apple App Store, Google (which includes nearly everything else - Play Store, Gmail, Gsuite/Gdocs), Facebook, and even Amazon (in far fewer cases) - the giants can afford to choose a policy that is most financially efficient. The business cost to review each case is simply not worth it financially. Only until a critical mass of angry/banned users exists, there will be no change. It's unfortunate that it takes posting to HN or Twitter in the hopes that an employee of one of those companies will see it and champion the cause of the user.
- seemslegit 7y agoI'd suggest lawyering up but even banks in the US routinely close peoples accounts without offering any explanation or recourse so it would be surprising if such arbitrariness could be successfully fought in court.
- Finnucane 7y agoMore and more businesses are trying (as gets discussed here from time to time) to force you to 'agree' to private arbitration and give up your right to sue, including class actions suits. You might be able to laboriously opt-out, but it hard to just say 'I won't use those services' because it almost universal.
- seemslegit 7y agoThis isn't about lack of ability to petition the courts, it's about the courts having been petitioned many times and deciding that yes, far more essential businesses than airbnb can in general ban you with no explanation or recourse. In such case arbitration might actually be in the users favour as it might force disclosure of the considerations leading to the ban.
- tmaly 7y agoI helped my son open up a toy for Christmas. Inside the box was an arbitration agreement. I am wondering how they think that works when I have not signed something.
- joeberon 7y agoThere's no way that companies should be allowed such total and irreversible control, especially if they effectively control so much real estate
- seemslegit 7y agoAirbnb controlls zero real-estate, it's a coordination and payment mechanism, that's all.
- seemslegit 7y agoI wonder if the downvotes are by people who think this is an excuse for airbnb rather than pointing how little added value it actually provides and how easily replaceable it is
- pmiller2 7y agoNo idea why you're being downvoted. AirBnB controls no real estate. The properties listed there are owned by people outside AirBnB and can be rented out on other sites, such as VRBO. Edit: Misread original comment.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoI believe the word effectively is used in the parent comment to indicate the control is through coordination and payment mechanisms.
- usr1106 7y agoThe point is really company size and/or monopoly. If I don't like my barber's service I go the next one. But if I don't like Google and don't have an iPhone there there a many things that I cannot do because every business assumes you can run their apps. If I don't like Airbnb, renting holiday accommodations can be quite limited because many properties are not available on alternative channels. Boeing has failed badly, but they are considered too big to fail. The problem is not limited to digital services. I think the only solution is what happened to AT&T decades ago. If a company's market share is too big, they need to be split up by government intervention.
- sachdevap 7y agoOlder thread on same post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17523056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17523056
- privateSFacct 7y agoAirbnb has had problems with people finding out where hosts work, where they have other business etc and leaving offsite reviews for airbnb stays on those platforms. My question - would you rent out a room in your house for a night if someone starts leaving crappy reviews about you everywhere? Many people would not. I think Airbnb AND homeowners should carry much more liability for some of the fraud on Airbnb, so I hope to see airbnb paying big penalty bucks in the future. Airbnb likely dislikes third party reservations, offsite payments and offsite bookings for business reasons as well. I wouldn't be surprised if folks going off-site are asked not to participate on-site - fair or not.
- awinder 7y agoI 100% believe the authors side of this charade, and I think the answer to the hypothetical goes something like this: 1. 90% of Airbnb hosts are not going to run into that problem because they’re going to do everything to make it right, so to fear it would be akin to being worried about getting hit by lightening. 2. 10% of Airbnb hosts are psychotically delusional and create problems, do nothing to fix them, and empowered by Airbnb, leave the only remaining outlet as off-site reviews. These people don’t have any business renting property. So that is to say — the “problem” of off-site reviews is a secondary repercussion of Airbnb letting nearly anyone rent their places, and then not doing enough to prune bad hosts out. It’s a fundamental misalignment in their business model to tilt this heavily towards hosts, because hosts have illiquid property in mostly crowded markets (expendable) while customers have extremely liquid capital and lots of choice.
- privateSFacct 7y agoHaving run into nutty hosts (and before that landlords) would you as a guest feel good if one of those hosts started posting negative reviews about you offsite based on your stay at Airbnb? Ie, if their only outlet for a guest that "created problems" "did nothing to fix them" was off-site reviews? I've found folks with the approach of I should be able to slam you publicly react TERRIBLY when they themselves start receiving off-site reviews. And I've found the nutty hosts / nutty guests often have the most time to pursue things like off-site reviews as an "outlet" for their aggression. I have stopped saying at airbnb when traveling except for big group trips and paying for very premium places because the quality of hosts is problematic as you describe, and airbnb should ABSOLUTELY shut down the false advertising hosts (extra charges after / poorly disclosed "rules", cameras in all the rooms etc). But I do have an outlet, I book a nice room at a hotel - a very predictable experience! And I'm not the only one.
- bjustin 7y agoCompanies with monopoly power[1] shouldn’t be able to be people without some appeals process. That said, I don’t know what that would look like or if Airbnb even should be subject to it. Other services and hotels are still viable alternatives for most cases. By contrast, Google banning people is more of a problem due to the wide variety of services they offer. The traditional approach of breaking up large companies seems sufficient if one wanted to address what a problem it is to get banned by them. [1] With 40% market share as the threshold for possible monopoly scrutiny, like the European Commission suggests.
- docdeek 7y agoWould AirBnB be a monopoly even at 40%? Maybe (likely?) in home or room share, but they are competing against hotels and probably wouldn't have a 40% stake of that market. Or maybe I am underestimating how big they have got?
- drstewart 7y ago>Companies with monopoly power[1] shouldn’t be able to be people without some appeals process. >Other services and hotels are still viable alternatives for most cases. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25243594/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/hotels-upgrade-their-no-stay-lists/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25243594/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/h... Why are you singling out Airbnb and not Hilton, IHG, Marriott, or Hyatt?
- usr1106 7y agoFor a user in EU it should be possible to work around such ban. First make a GDPR request to have your data deleted. After som grace period, register again. If they tell you that you are banned, they show that they have not deleted the data. File a complaint with data protection authorities and have them fined. Of course the better answer is just not to do any business with shitty companies.
- eropple 7y agoThis "clever hack" isn't how the GDPR works at all. In the first place, sufficiently pseudonymous data--that is, data that cannot by itself be used to reveal a specific, non-anonymous user--need not be deleted. (Hashing a ban list based on the personal and immutable information required at signup is an example of this, though discarding that information is.) Beyond that, the GDPR includes protections for companies against "manifestly unfounded" requests; while one must use this as an affirmative defense, a request to delete the record that that user has been banned from the service is a prime example of such things. I do wish that software people sometimes bothered to extend a baseline level of competence to other people once in awhile, though. Like--do you think nobody thought of this situation?
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoI guess the hashed ban list is reasonable solution. Actually looking at Airbnb you can register three ways - via FaceBook, Google, or via Email address. Signing via Email requires Email, first name, and birth date. I suppose if someone wanted to beat the ban they could do it at least 3 times.
- eropple 7y agoWithout even looking I can bet that they require identity and email when you log in via a social provider too. The better option is likely a set of hashes of various permutations of data, though, with some set of hits prompting for further information (such as an e-mail or a full name match requiring proof of identity before allowing usage).
- scbrg 7y ago> Moving forward, I question whether these types of suspensions should be allowed from the tech giants without any oversight or regulation. There is an industry based on providing short term lodging for people that is subject to oversight and regulation. Businesses operating in this industry are usually called "hotels".
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoOn one hand you're correct, on the other there's all sorts of industries that still exist even though they have been 'disrupted', but I'm guessing if you relied on one of the disrupters for a service and were banned you might not be so cavalier in your attitude - this is based on my never having read of anyone being banned from one of these services unfairly and taking it in the calm stride you're recommending.
- drstewart 7y agoAnd yet hotels can and do permanently ban guests from their property all the time with no recourse, so I'm not sure what your implication is. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25243594/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/hotels-upgrade-their-no-stay-lists/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25243594/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/h...
- toomuchtodo 7y agoJust as with cryptocurrencies ("What do you mean my net worth just evaporated and I have no recourse!?"), it's somewhat humorous to witness platform enthusiasts demand the very regulation platforms subverted to grow to what they are today. Your point stands though; businesses have the right to turn away customers for any reason that isn't discriminatory or class protected. Perhaps there's a reason to consider regulating certain platforms as utilities once they reach a certain scale? (Not referring to AirBnB in this case)
- nathanappere 7y agoIf they are not required by law to provide the reasons and some context, it is difficult to assess if they are discriminatory or class protected.
- awinter-py 7y agoI like how 'catered eggs benny' is the dispute resolution go-to. The new millennium has really come of age This will keep happening as long as there's no cheap 3rd-party dispute arbitration. E-commerce has gotten super cheap and transactional but arbitration needs to catch up
- pmiller2 7y agos/arbitration/voluntary arbitration/g and you would have my upvote.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sombremesa 7y ago> But let’s call it like it is. This policy leverages the company’s power over the individual user to a cruel and unprecedented extent. As a host, when I listed on AirBnB I was completely at their mercy in terms of where I'd show up in the listing ranking and they also had a rule that you can't be a superhost if you decline some percent of bookings - i.e., they decide who you host, not you. After declining a string of suspicious bookings (and having to list at a giveaway price just to be anywhere near the top of the rankings), I decided to just give up completely on the platform. Craigslist is better, where I can at least interview someone.
- svacko 7y agoI got blocked from accessing a Gmail account half year ago during a long term stay in another continent and despite knowing the password, answering the security question I'm still not able to access nor recover it as i can't recall the date of creating the account (it's too old to recall exact month/year combo). There is nothing you can do in this situation, nowhere to complain, whole identity tied to the account is gone. I'm losing belief i can access it one day.. Anyway, this was a wake up call and since then I'm in progress of migrating all my services outside big players..
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoFuck Google, fuck G-Mail, and fuck "free" shit, ESPECIALLY FOR EMAIL!!!! Do yourself a favor and pay $20/mo for a Office365 account. When you pay for something, you'll be amazed how responsive the counter party typically is.
- y4mi 7y agowhile i'd agree that outlook.live.com is a great webservice, i'm not sure i'd encourage people that only want mail service to use it. office365 is aimed at people that actually want to use the microsoft office suite. if you only want email, you'll get as much for ~$5/month
- haecceity 7y agoThey’re really going overboard with these security questions. This is why I use ProtonMail.
- quotemstr 7y agoThis isn't about economics. This is about power. We used to understand that power is an incredibly dangerous thing. This country was founded on the principle of diffusing power: no one person should have unilateral authority over the lives of millions of people. Consequently, our government is set up to pit ambitious people against each other and make them accountable to the public. It's worked for hundreds of years. Why shouldn't we apply the principle of separation of powers to corporations that can harm millions of people? Once a company becomes so large that it becomes an integral part of society (and I think Airbnb now qualifies) it should be subject either to regulation (to diffuse power and make the company accountable to public via the state) or split up (to diffuse power and make the company accountable to the public via the market). Consider it a lifetime achievement prize. The overriding principle here is that no one person should have the amount of power of individual lives that the CEO of an essential monopoly has.
- Finnucane 7y ago>This isn't about economics. This is about power. What part of economics isn't about power?
- quotemstr 7y ago> What part of economics isn't about power? Economics is about power in the sense that chemistry is about particle physics. I mean, yeah, sure, that kind of analysis is technically admissible, but it's not useful because there are important emergent phenomena in the higher-level system (economics, chemistry) that become impossibly cumbersome modeled directly in the language of the lower-level system (individual incentives, particle physics). It's not particularly productive to apply the language of political science to things like Ricardo's examination of land rents. My point is that as companies become very large, the high-level phenomenon start to break down and we need to begin using the lower-level machinery to make sense of the problem in the extreme space. For example, the interior of neutron star is best understood by referencing physical effects directly. Likewise, when an economy has consolidated to the point that we basically have one giant company per economic sector, it starts being more useful to look at the situation through the lens of history and politics than through the lens of pure economics.
- rkagerer 7y agoWe’re becoming increasingly dependent on a handful of major tech giants to get through our basic daily routine. Well there's your problem right there.
- mnm1 7y agoThe truth is that he doesn't know why he was banned. Could have been a bug. Could have been something he did. Could have been the host knows someone at airbnb and got the guest banned. It doesn't really matter. Amazon does the same thing. Google does the same thing. Uber does the same thing. Yeah, people can argue companies can do business with whomever they want and blah blah (blah blah because the argument simply boils down to everything legal is fine) but the reality is that many of these services are essential for some people and we as a society need to start treating them as such. We should require clear explanations from such businesses at the very least. Otherwise, how do we know they are not breaking the law? Maybe they banned the author because they didn't like his ethnicity or gender or some other protected status. I do not see why we should give corporations such rights of refusal when we cannot police them to make sure that the rights are being used properly. I don't understand why we as a society don't make the corporations work for us rather than making us, the people, a slave to the corporation. In theory, we can do either. Reality is another story, of course.