10 ms·

For those just tuning in, Paul Carr has been bashing AirBnB since last summer: http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/25/fawlty-logic/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/25/

by temphn 15y ago

For those just tuning in, Paul Carr has been bashing AirBnB since last summer: http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/25/fawlty-logic/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/25/fawlty-logic/ And has a vested interest in their failure: Disclosure: I like hotels a lot – and I’ve spent much of my life in them. Both of my parents are career-long hoteliers, first managing large corporate chain units and now owning their own hotel in the UK. And now he's accusing these poor guys of "losing their souls". This whole internet lynch mob thing is scary. Let's remember that they didn't trash the apartment, they just set up a CRUD site with a good UI that got really popular. How exactly are they more responsible than Faith Clifton, the criminal who ransacked the apartment and who they helped SFPD arrest? Seriously, some extreme hyperbole here.

hello_moto 15y ago
Internet lynch mob is scary? what about real-life mob? Apparently it is today's norm.
SonicSoul 15y ago
not familiar with Paul Carr, so i'm glad you brought this up, thanks. But i don't think he was lynching AirBnB for lack of accountability. Rather, he said that it was cold blooded for a co-founder to call and ask her to stop giving them a bad name right before a funding round. (i've also read somewhere else that he was trying to ask her to put a positive twist).
- kailashbadu 15y ago
  Had the AirBnB been able to hush the victim by offering her a juicy paycheck, it would have been a textbook example of crisis management. That the arrangement didn't work out and the lady chose to divulge the details of the deal gone sour, the co-founders are being labelled cold blooded for offering the deal in the first place. I think it's just plain bad luck that AirBnB could not come up with a compensation package good enough to muffle the victim.
jmspring 15y ago
I'm not sure how one's interest in staying hotels necessitates a vested interest in seeing AirBnB fail. I'm pretty sure there are people in the "hotel industry" that have also used services like VRBO or AirBnB for lodging. Personally, I read Paul's article more in the sense that technology isn't important, remembering the human component in all this. If one is a company founder, your users are more than just data points. Disclaimer - like Paul, I actually enjoy using a fountain pen. Specifically to the AirBnB fiasco? I don't know who or what is right here, it is an issue between an individual and a company that will require the two of them working together to resolve the situation. I've used AirBnB a few times (as someone staying somewhere) and plan on using them in the future. That said, I use as much caution as I can in booking a place -- reviews are important. This particular story being turned into a YC/HN vs TC issue is silly. News is useful, but again AirBnB and EJ need to resolve this between themselves.
- meinthecity 15y ago
  Did you miss the part about his parents owning a hotel or are you willfully ignoring it? That is the definition of vested interest.
  - Hisoka 15y ago
    Please, like AirBnb will cost his parents their living... AirBnb will always remain a very small niche
    - meinthecity 15y ago
      Did I say it would? Having blood relatives financially invested in an industry you are commenting on is the actual definition of vested interest. OP conve iently ignored that part. I simply pointed out the fact.
  - Gatsky 15y ago
    It's an opinion piece. You can pick any two sentences out of the story and realize this is someone's personal view. It isn't a clinical trial or a judiciary verdict. I think it's largely irrelevant that his parents own a hotel. Having a particular view on something which invariably arises out of the sum total of your cultural and personal influences is not a vested interest.
carbonica 15y ago
> And now he's accusing these poor guys of "losing their souls". When you call up the victim and ask them to close down their blog because or restrict access because you don't want it to affect your round of funding, you're not "poor guys" anymore. When you ask her to add some positive spin to the story when there's no positive spin to be had, you're not an innocent bystander anymore. Nobody's saying the founders are responsible for the damage, they're saying the way the founders treated the victim is deplorable.
- thatjoshguy 15y ago
  I think a lot of people have been saying they are responsible.
  - fedd 15y ago
    and they are. like, you know, a pub is responsible when you slip on the wet floor there and break a leg. some people would say that you should have eyes and be careful, but would we listen to them, or sue the pub that forgot to put 'caution wet floor' sign?
    - lallysingh 15y ago
      So, with the anonymizing that AirBnB does, how does one "have eyes and be careful?" edit: added "how"
      - fedd 15y ago
        that's what i'm saying, so that's also why the company is responsible, i think
- tptacek 15y ago
  You have no idea what happened on whatever call you're thinking of. You have no idea what's been offered to the victim. You have no idea, basically, period. But you're OK passing judgement on them. Good to know. What's the win to a comment like this? Even if you're eventually shown to be right --- and that's still an if --- why go out on the limb at all?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
angryasian 15y ago
I think you fail to look at the general reaction from the other side, all you have to look at is Robert Scoble's reaction to the women, calling her "crazy", "batshit crazy", "drama queen" and just about every other proponent and investor placing the blame on this women for renting out her property and keeping her stuff in the place where she lives, but this is exactly the point of airbnb. So which is it, don't rent out the space where you live, or only rent out a space that you use as only as investment. Direct link to scoble reaction: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/eT6Zar6WM1X https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/eT6Zar6W... The responses in this thread is exactly what Carr is talking about. The women is trying to be vilified when she was the victim. Maybe airbnb is not the villain here either, but she certainly isn't and Airbnb's handling of the situation was less than honorable.
- hrasm 15y ago
  Off-topic: women is plural while woman is singular.
- darklajid 15y ago
  I'm trying to ignore the name calling for a second. What really struck me is this, though: The post says: "2. Have a single point of contact: the CEO. Part of this crisis got worse because numerous people have been speaking to the press. The first thing you should do if you are in a crisis is appoint ONE PERSON to speak to the press and represent the company. That person should be the CEO. Not Paul Graham. Not the PR team. Not some VP. Not friends. Not off the record sources. Not anyone else except the CEO. (...)" I'd argue that - posting this thing in general was already a violation of that rule, i.e. public advice as someone close to the company - continuing the discussion in the comments, after posting that there shouldn't be any communication except through the CEO. I mean.. It sounds like he wrote 'Shut up everyone, including PG' and then he continues to comment..? Am I misreading the initial statement (certainly possible) or is this a ~mismatch~?
adnam 15y ago
Having parents who own one single hotel is hardly a "vested interest".
- ZachPruckowski 15y ago
  While I don't think it's relevant to the overall point of Carr's piece, it is still a vested interest. Carr's parents might be very small-time players in the hotel industry, but the hotel industry is a large portion of their livelihood, which is the relevant factor.
ZachPruckowski 15y ago
Ad hominem. Paul Carr could be the heir to half the hotels in the world, he's still got a point.
bconway 15y ago
Logical fallacy: ad hominem. You are attacking the person and ignoring his argument.

by temphn 15y ago

hello_moto 15y ago

Internet lynch mob is scary? what about real-life mob? Apparently it is today's norm.

SonicSoul 15y ago

not familiar with Paul Carr, so i'm glad you brought this up, thanks. But i don't think he was lynching AirBnB for lack of accountability. Rather, he said that it was cold blooded for a co-founder to call and ask her to stop giving them a bad name right before a funding round. (i've also read somewhere else that he was trying to ask her to put a positive twist).

kailashbadu 15y ago
Had the AirBnB been able to hush the victim by offering her a juicy paycheck, it would have been a textbook example of crisis management. That the arrangement didn't work out and the lady chose to divulge the details of the deal gone sour, the co-founders are being labelled cold blooded for offering the deal in the first place. I think it's just plain bad luck that AirBnB could not come up with a compensation package good enough to muffle the victim.

jmspring 15y ago

I'm not sure how one's interest in staying hotels necessitates a vested interest in seeing AirBnB fail. I'm pretty sure there are people in the "hotel industry" that have also used services like VRBO or AirBnB for lodging. Personally, I read Paul's article more in the sense that technology isn't important, remembering the human component in all this. If one is a company founder, your users are more than just data points. Disclaimer - like Paul, I actually enjoy using a fountain pen. Specifically to the AirBnB fiasco? I don't know who or what is right here, it is an issue between an individual and a company that will require the two of them working together to resolve the situation. I've used AirBnB a few times (as someone staying somewhere) and plan on using them in the future. That said, I use as much caution as I can in booking a place -- reviews are important. This particular story being turned into a YC/HN vs TC issue is silly. News is useful, but again AirBnB and EJ need to resolve this between themselves.

meinthecity 15y ago
Did you miss the part about his parents owning a hotel or are you willfully ignoring it? That is the definition of vested interest.
- Hisoka 15y ago
  Please, like AirBnb will cost his parents their living... AirBnb will always remain a very small niche
  - meinthecity 15y ago
    Did I say it would? Having blood relatives financially invested in an industry you are commenting on is the actual definition of vested interest. OP conve iently ignored that part. I simply pointed out the fact.
- Gatsky 15y ago
  It's an opinion piece. You can pick any two sentences out of the story and realize this is someone's personal view. It isn't a clinical trial or a judiciary verdict. I think it's largely irrelevant that his parents own a hotel. Having a particular view on something which invariably arises out of the sum total of your cultural and personal influences is not a vested interest.

carbonica 15y ago

> And now he's accusing these poor guys of "losing their souls". When you call up the victim and ask them to close down their blog because or restrict access because you don't want it to affect your round of funding, you're not "poor guys" anymore. When you ask her to add some positive spin to the story when there's no positive spin to be had, you're not an innocent bystander anymore. Nobody's saying the founders are responsible for the damage, they're saying the way the founders treated the victim is deplorable.

thatjoshguy 15y ago
I think a lot of people have been saying they are responsible.
- fedd 15y ago
  and they are. like, you know, a pub is responsible when you slip on the wet floor there and break a leg. some people would say that you should have eyes and be careful, but would we listen to them, or sue the pub that forgot to put 'caution wet floor' sign?
  - lallysingh 15y ago
    So, with the anonymizing that AirBnB does, how does one "have eyes and be careful?" edit: added "how"
    - fedd 15y ago
      that's what i'm saying, so that's also why the company is responsible, i think
tptacek 15y ago
You have no idea what happened on whatever call you're thinking of. You have no idea what's been offered to the victim. You have no idea, basically, period. But you're OK passing judgement on them. Good to know. What's the win to a comment like this? Even if you're eventually shown to be right --- and that's still an if --- why go out on the limb at all?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

angryasian 15y ago

I think you fail to look at the general reaction from the other side, all you have to look at is Robert Scoble's reaction to the women, calling her "crazy", "batshit crazy", "drama queen" and just about every other proponent and investor placing the blame on this women for renting out her property and keeping her stuff in the place where she lives, but this is exactly the point of airbnb. So which is it, don't rent out the space where you live, or only rent out a space that you use as only as investment. Direct link to scoble reaction: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/eT6Zar6WM1X https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/eT6Zar6W... The responses in this thread is exactly what Carr is talking about. The women is trying to be vilified when she was the victim. Maybe airbnb is not the villain here either, but she certainly isn't and Airbnb's handling of the situation was less than honorable.

hrasm 15y ago
Off-topic: women is plural while woman is singular.
darklajid 15y ago
I'm trying to ignore the name calling for a second. What really struck me is this, though: The post says: "2. Have a single point of contact: the CEO. Part of this crisis got worse because numerous people have been speaking to the press. The first thing you should do if you are in a crisis is appoint ONE PERSON to speak to the press and represent the company. That person should be the CEO. Not Paul Graham. Not the PR team. Not some VP. Not friends. Not off the record sources. Not anyone else except the CEO. (...)" I'd argue that - posting this thing in general was already a violation of that rule, i.e. public advice as someone close to the company - continuing the discussion in the comments, after posting that there shouldn't be any communication except through the CEO. I mean.. It sounds like he wrote 'Shut up everyone, including PG' and then he continues to comment..? Am I misreading the initial statement (certainly possible) or is this a ~mismatch~?

adnam 15y ago

Having parents who own one single hotel is hardly a "vested interest".

ZachPruckowski 15y ago
While I don't think it's relevant to the overall point of Carr's piece, it is still a vested interest. Carr's parents might be very small-time players in the hotel industry, but the hotel industry is a large portion of their livelihood, which is the relevant factor.

ZachPruckowski 15y ago

Ad hominem. Paul Carr could be the heir to half the hotels in the world, he's still got a point.

bconway 15y ago

Logical fallacy: ad hominem. You are attacking the person and ignoring his argument.