6 ms·

> 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 b

> 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?
- acak 15y ago
  Is it such a bad idea to disclose what was offered? Unfortunately the statements so far have not been "human" enough. When they said their lawyers couldn't let them say any more than X, it's bound to incite one's suspicion that they're trying to shy away from some moral inclinations which their lawyers may have warned them not to indulge in. Even though the specifics of the offer cannot be disclosed, why not put out a reassuring statement like "We're committed to putting a smile back on her face again"? Not being specific / tangible in their PR will definitely be a lot more tolerable then. And if they can be a little more specific and relevant, how about some PR saying they're offering counselling or therapy of some sort - I'm sure its one of the things that was offered - and I'm sure it would be make for great brand building if it was part of their current communication. Also, if AirBnB had been more open in this way, they could have avoided the embarrassment of being contradicted by the victim herself. You know who the people would trust more at this stage. In short, a little less heartless corporate, a little more Zappos, please. AirBnB could have actually had an upside in the whole thing if they handled in a better, probably more upfront, manner. Sure, there's a danger of people abusing or taking advantage of the system at a later date but that cannot stand in the way of dousing what is clearly a PR fire in the house of a promising company. Disclosure: I am biased towards neither AirBnb nor the victim. I have sympathy for the woman but I am open to the possibility that she is not being cooperative.
- carbonica 15y ago
  I see no reason to doubt what EJ has said so far. AirBnB/pg have made several conflicting statements, called reporters liars for repeating official statements, and in general, proven to be less consistent/trustworthy than "EJ", which considering her anonymous status, really says something. The only reason I can see to doubt EJ's story is if you're in the "this is a conspiracy against AirBnB" camp.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I am not calling EJ a liar. This isn't a football game.
    - 15y ago
philwelch 15y ago
Just what I was about to say. That's what turned me against Airbnb personally.
chrischen 15y ago
> when there's no positive spin to be had How do you know that?

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?

acak 15y ago
Is it such a bad idea to disclose what was offered? Unfortunately the statements so far have not been "human" enough. When they said their lawyers couldn't let them say any more than X, it's bound to incite one's suspicion that they're trying to shy away from some moral inclinations which their lawyers may have warned them not to indulge in. Even though the specifics of the offer cannot be disclosed, why not put out a reassuring statement like "We're committed to putting a smile back on her face again"? Not being specific / tangible in their PR will definitely be a lot more tolerable then. And if they can be a little more specific and relevant, how about some PR saying they're offering counselling or therapy of some sort - I'm sure its one of the things that was offered - and I'm sure it would be make for great brand building if it was part of their current communication. Also, if AirBnB had been more open in this way, they could have avoided the embarrassment of being contradicted by the victim herself. You know who the people would trust more at this stage. In short, a little less heartless corporate, a little more Zappos, please. AirBnB could have actually had an upside in the whole thing if they handled in a better, probably more upfront, manner. Sure, there's a danger of people abusing or taking advantage of the system at a later date but that cannot stand in the way of dousing what is clearly a PR fire in the house of a promising company. Disclosure: I am biased towards neither AirBnb nor the victim. I have sympathy for the woman but I am open to the possibility that she is not being cooperative.
carbonica 15y ago
I see no reason to doubt what EJ has said so far. AirBnB/pg have made several conflicting statements, called reporters liars for repeating official statements, and in general, proven to be less consistent/trustworthy than "EJ", which considering her anonymous status, really says something. The only reason I can see to doubt EJ's story is if you're in the "this is a conspiracy against AirBnB" camp.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I am not calling EJ a liar. This isn't a football game.
  - 15y ago

philwelch 15y ago

Just what I was about to say. That's what turned me against Airbnb personally.

chrischen 15y ago

> when there's no positive spin to be had How do you know that?