3 ms·

You know, I assumed that much of what she said was a misinterpretation of events based on emotional stress like you say since their public face was completely d

by bugsy 15y ago

You know, I assumed that much of what she said was a misinterpretation of events based on emotional stress like you say since their public face was completely different from the aggressive stance they (at least one of them) were taking in private. However, that changed after reading the Arrington article because it is now corroborated that they do in fact have people there taking an aggressive stance, and who are lying to PG since what PG said is definitely not true.

gojomo 15y ago
Compare Arrington's original writeup: I spoke to Airbnb about EJ’s situation. They won’t reimburse her for damages, they say, and they do not insure against losses. They are helping police track down the person who did this, but their help ends there. ...with how Arrington now casts the spokesman's statement... Airbnb’s Christopher Lukezic told me on Wednesday that the company was not responsible for EJ’s losses, that they are just a service to match people and that they were helping the police find the people who did this. There's a subtle but very important difference: 'not responsible' is not the same as 'their help ends there'. Did Arrington choose to punish the 'no comment' by using words carefully chosen to make AirBnb look worse? His latest post does not disprove that hypothesis! And when Arrington says, "What he said is what I wrote [above], and what was in the original post", well that's not true. The original post had a stronger implication AirBnb wasn't helping. Which is exactly what PG was objecting to.
- nkassis 15y ago
  Mmm, he's showing a bit of lack of journalistic integrity here. He should have quoted himself and maybe mention the possible mis understanding. Right now it seems that the whole situation is full or misunderstanding due to massive lack of communication between the people who are actually involved. EJ, AirBnB and SFPD seem to not be exchanging what they know very well. That was echoed in EJ's 2nd post where she says that the police might be giving different info to AirBnB and what not.

by bugsy 15y ago

gojomo 15y ago

Compare Arrington's original writeup: I spoke to Airbnb about EJ’s situation. They won’t reimburse her for damages, they say, and they do not insure against losses. They are helping police track down the person who did this, but their help ends there. ...with how Arrington now casts the spokesman's statement... Airbnb’s Christopher Lukezic told me on Wednesday that the company was not responsible for EJ’s losses, that they are just a service to match people and that they were helping the police find the people who did this. There's a subtle but very important difference: 'not responsible' is not the same as 'their help ends there'. Did Arrington choose to punish the 'no comment' by using words carefully chosen to make AirBnb look worse? His latest post does not disprove that hypothesis! And when Arrington says, "What he said is what I wrote [above], and what was in the original post", well that's not true. The original post had a stronger implication AirBnb wasn't helping. Which is exactly what PG was objecting to.

nkassis 15y ago
Mmm, he's showing a bit of lack of journalistic integrity here. He should have quoted himself and maybe mention the possible mis understanding. Right now it seems that the whole situation is full or misunderstanding due to massive lack of communication between the people who are actually involved. EJ, AirBnB and SFPD seem to not be exchanging what they know very well. That was echoed in EJ's 2nd post where she says that the police might be giving different info to AirBnB and what not.