> The point was that he doesn't need to know the founders and companies that well - asking the woman to take down her blog post or change it was a sleezy move.

> The point was that he doesn't need to know the founders and companies that well - asking the woman to take down her blog post or change it was a sleezy move. My point is that he does not have complete information about the situation. Neither do I. Neither do you. I don't really get why airbnb is on trial here. Something very unfortunate happened. They might've made a PR blunder. Maybe they could have a system with more emphasis on security, probably at the expense of volume. Whatever... it is their company, it makes us hosts good money and us travelers have better experiences. Nobody is obligated to use airbnb. We the users are not the victims of startup founders, like Carr dramatizes in the post, we're just users. We use the services because we derive more value from them than they cost. There is no "social contract" between founders and users.