3 ms·

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,

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.
- carbonica 15y ago
  You say it "isn't a football game," but either she's telling the truth on the bullying point or she's not. You clearly believe the latter is a strong enough possibility that you condemned my comments, based on my belief in what she has said. So you aren't calling her a liar... are you calling her "confused"? "Misguided"? I've made my point why I think she's the most believable currently. You, however, don't want to acknowledge that you doubt her.
  - masterzora 15y ago
    Why does anybody have to be calling her anything for certain? If one believes that they don't have enough information to determine with any significance whether she's more likely to be telling the truth or telling a mistaken account of events (whether intentionally or otherwise), it would be best to not take her words as more trustworthy than Airbnb's or vice versa. "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate point of view and "wait and see" a perfectly legitimate action given that point of view.
    - carbonica 15y ago
      She's given extremely detailed, well-written accounts of everything that has transpired. Nothing she has said has been disputed by any party. I think the better question is, where does this doubt come from, and where do the attacks against the victim come from (just a difficult customer, batshit, drama queen...)? I suspect purely loyalty.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
temphn 15y ago
You don't have to believe in a conspiracy. You just have to believe that there are some extremely difficult customers out there. Given that AirBnB offered her money and she isn't picking it up or returning their calls, but is talking to reporters, the most plausible explanation is that she's looking to get a huge payday in a lawsuit. She didn't have to think of the idea herself. A lawyer or family member may have put the thought in her head. "This is a billion dollar company, you know!" Do you really think she's not going to go for big dollars in a lawsuit at this point?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- carbonica 15y ago
  > Given that AirBnB offered her money There's been conflicting reports about this. Airbnb told TechCrunch - on the record - that they wouldn't pay for anything, that they didn't want to set a precedent. > she isn't picking it up or returning their calls She says that they stopped calling her after she posted the blog, except to beg her to take it down and suggest she pretend everything is all better. > is talking to reporters She's posted two blog posts - the first one reporting the incident, and another a month later. That's not "talking to reporters." Your framing is disingenuous at best. > Do you really think she's not going to go for big dollars in a lawsuit at this point? I don't think that a lawsuit would do well considering she said several times in her initial blog post that AirBnB is not at all to blame for her experience and that she held a significant amount of responsibility. Here's where you're taking it: she's not the victim, AirBnB is the victim. She's the "extremely difficult customer," or as Robert Scoble put it, "batshit crazy" and a "drama queen." She's not a victim, she's just a bitch. Right. I don't like demonizing victims, but I know in the male-dominated tech world this kind of framing is an easy sell.
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    I think the basic point is that you are talking as if there is certainty around your claims when there isn't.
mkramlich 15y ago
> I see no reason to doubt what EJ has said so far. This is incredibly naive. It could be the case that this was a setup. And it would be very easy to set such a thing up. And there's an entire industry with a lot of old money invested in that industry continuing. That means motive. Nobody here can say yet with 100% confidence what really did or did not happen. Could it have really happened in a non-setup fashion? Of course, and arguably it is/was inevitable. Could it also have been a "hit job"? You bet. Whenever you've got people in one camp with millions if not billions in existing revenue on the line, you have a motive. And the means and method are both easy and obvious.
- carbonica 15y ago
  > This is incredibly naive. No, it's based on all the existing evidence currently out there. > It could be the case that this was a setup. This is based on speculation. > And it would be very easy to set such a thing up. It's easy to do lots of things. > And there's an entire industry with a lot of old money invested in that industry continuing. So? Any evidence? Anything other than liking Airbnb/YC to suspect this? > That means motive. You've shown the hotel industry has motive. Not EJ. This is irrelevant. > Nobody here can say yet with 100% confidence what really did or did not happen. Nobody can say anything with 100% confidence when two stories conflict. We don't even require juries to be 100% confident, we ask them to be sure beyond "reasonable doubt." What you have here is not a reasonable doubt. It is concocted > Could it have really happened in a non-setup fashion? Of course, and arguably it is/was inevitable. Yes, it was inevitable. This is a good reason to suspect > Could it also have been a "hit job"? You bet. My water could have been poisoned by my next-door neighbor because I had a loud party one night. I have no reason to believe this, but it could be happening! In fact, that silly scenario has better motive (which you emphasize) than your concoction since it actually ties the accused to the motive, which you haven't done. > Whenever you've got people in one camp with millions if not billions in existing revenue on the line, you have a motive. And the means and method are both easy and obvious. That's a delightful story, but again... you've presented nothing but pure speculation.
- class_vs_object 15y ago
  > It could be the case that this was a setup It could also be the case that the founders running Airbnb have a mildly sociopathic personality style. (I don't mean that in a derogatory sense - I'm calling it a personality style, not a personality disorder... while such a personality style might represent a disability when it comes to forming intimate personal relationships, it would be an advantage when hustling to get a startup off the ground.) Of course, when such individuals are called on for a display of genuine empathy, compassion, or humanity, they will be left feeling confused and won't know what hit them - they might even start to believe that they are being victimized.
dredmorbius 15y ago
The real point is that the AirBnB situation is untenable regardless of who's telling the truth. Suppose EJ is lying. Well, then, this business has a profound reputation risk which can be exploited by any given individual using (or claiming to use) the service. A risk which is going to tie heavily into some fundamental problems in vetting both guests and hosts. Suppose AirBnB are lying. The company is exposed as being ungrateful, etc., as Paul Carr's excellent piece notes (conflict of interest or no, he captures the situation well). Suppose EJ and AirBnB are both being truthful. Neither disputes that the house-trashing occurred, there's been some contact between AirBnB, and apparently at least partial assistance in finding accommodations, etc. We've still got a woman who's been hugely inconvenienced, has suffered real, physical, and psychological losses, and needs to put her life back together. And we've got a company with a real and apparently intractable problem with its business model, possibly running scared. Inviting strangers off the Internet to come stay at your house is going to involve some very real risks, and some percentage, however small, of AirBnB experiences are going to end very badly. As I noted in an earlier post on this subject, what happened to EJ isn't the worst possible case. A guest copying keys, returning to the home, raping and killing the host, would be ... a pretty bad day. I think AirBnB are going to have to re-think what they're offering, whom they're catering to (for both guests and hosts), and what they can do to mitigate risks (guests are also assuming risks, though not to their real estate as hosts are). Disintermediation via the Web is great when you've got a happy, happy crowd of people involved. The lesson from history is that this isn't a stable or scalable situation. Woodstock was followed by Altamont. I've got my own suspicions as to who seems more credible, or at least is acting to type. None of us will know until more facts are known, police and criminal investigations are concluded (and perhaps tried), and the dispute between EJ and AirBnB is settled (perhaps also going to court). Even then much may remain vague, under seal, or otherwise obscured. None of that changes any of what I've said: AirBnB simply involves too much risk exposure to all parties: hosts, gusts, AirBnB, and its investors/creditors. It's going to have to restructure fundamentally, or fold.
- justincormack 15y ago
  The risk point is interesting. All sides have asymmetric information, and the marketplace makes no attempt to deal with this. Most successful markets do something to even up these risks, or to mitigate them, or you get the classic market for lemons situation.
llambda 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. Her anonymous status really says something, like what? Well it says she's anonymous, that's it. Nothing more. This is pure hyperbole. The simple fact is, we don't have all the facts. It's her word against Airbnb's word. Neither side is more credible without more facts. Clearly both have demonstrated they will reframe their situation as circumstances change[1][2][3]. [1] http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html "I would be remiss if I didn’t pause here to emphasize that the customer service team at airbnb.com has been wonderful, giving this crime their full attention. They have called often, expressing empathy, support, and genuine concern for my welfare. They have offered to help me recover emotionally and financially, and are working with SFPD to track down these criminals." An initial perspective, pre-Internet mob: "EJ" made a first post about how helpful Airbnb has been, stating they have offered to provide "emotional and financial support". [2] http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/07/airbnb-nightmare-no-end-in-sight.html http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/07/airbnb-nightmare... "Airbnb has not assisted me in securing my safety, if that is the implication being made in Chesky's article" and "But the staff at Airbnb has not made a positive contribution to me personally or my situation in any way, particularly since June 30." Then in her second blog post she backtracks and claims that Airbnb has done effectively nothing to help her. [3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822721 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822721 "Airbnb has been offering to fix it, from the very beginning. From the beginning they offered to pay to get her a new place and new stuff, and do whatever else she wanted." Here pg is commenting in regards to information he received from Airbnb, apparently contradicting the latest "EJ" post but corroborating the original.
- Terretta 15y ago
  Michael Arrington · Top Commenter · Founder at TechCrunch "He said they would not reimburse her for damages, then talked about how they're just a service. Then we talked about something else for a bit. Then I read him what I wrote about what he said. then he said ok, but maybe we are doing something for her. I asked him if he wanted to me to write that they have no liability for damages at all, that they are just a service, that they are only helping her and the police find the suspect, and then say that the spokesperson changed his mind and said that maybe they were helping her but he wasn't sure and he had to check with customer service and get back to me? I suggested he figure it out and email me any corrections, which he did. It was one of the more amateurish moments I've seen, and if I had quoted the poor guy directly he would have looked like a fool."
michaelcampbell 15y ago
> The only reason I can see to doubt EJ's story is if you're in the "this is a conspiracy against AirBnB" camp. Really? The ONLY reason? Your superlative-fu is strong.

tptacek 15y ago

I am not calling EJ a liar. This isn't a football game.

carbonica 15y ago
You say it "isn't a football game," but either she's telling the truth on the bullying point or she's not. You clearly believe the latter is a strong enough possibility that you condemned my comments, based on my belief in what she has said. So you aren't calling her a liar... are you calling her "confused"? "Misguided"? I've made my point why I think she's the most believable currently. You, however, don't want to acknowledge that you doubt her.
- masterzora 15y ago
  Why does anybody have to be calling her anything for certain? If one believes that they don't have enough information to determine with any significance whether she's more likely to be telling the truth or telling a mistaken account of events (whether intentionally or otherwise), it would be best to not take her words as more trustworthy than Airbnb's or vice versa. "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate point of view and "wait and see" a perfectly legitimate action given that point of view.
  - carbonica 15y ago
    She's given extremely detailed, well-written accounts of everything that has transpired. Nothing she has said has been disputed by any party. I think the better question is, where does this doubt come from, and where do the attacks against the victim come from (just a difficult customer, batshit, drama queen...)? I suspect purely loyalty.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]

temphn 15y ago

You don't have to believe in a conspiracy. You just have to believe that there are some extremely difficult customers out there. Given that AirBnB offered her money and she isn't picking it up or returning their calls, but is talking to reporters, the most plausible explanation is that she's looking to get a huge payday in a lawsuit. She didn't have to think of the idea herself. A lawyer or family member may have put the thought in her head. "This is a billion dollar company, you know!" Do you really think she's not going to go for big dollars in a lawsuit at this point?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
carbonica 15y ago
> Given that AirBnB offered her money There's been conflicting reports about this. Airbnb told TechCrunch - on the record - that they wouldn't pay for anything, that they didn't want to set a precedent. > she isn't picking it up or returning their calls She says that they stopped calling her after she posted the blog, except to beg her to take it down and suggest she pretend everything is all better. > is talking to reporters She's posted two blog posts - the first one reporting the incident, and another a month later. That's not "talking to reporters." Your framing is disingenuous at best. > Do you really think she's not going to go for big dollars in a lawsuit at this point? I don't think that a lawsuit would do well considering she said several times in her initial blog post that AirBnB is not at all to blame for her experience and that she held a significant amount of responsibility. Here's where you're taking it: she's not the victim, AirBnB is the victim. She's the "extremely difficult customer," or as Robert Scoble put it, "batshit crazy" and a "drama queen." She's not a victim, she's just a bitch. Right. I don't like demonizing victims, but I know in the male-dominated tech world this kind of framing is an easy sell.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  I think the basic point is that you are talking as if there is certainty around your claims when there isn't.

mkramlich 15y ago

> I see no reason to doubt what EJ has said so far. This is incredibly naive. It could be the case that this was a setup. And it would be very easy to set such a thing up. And there's an entire industry with a lot of old money invested in that industry continuing. That means motive. Nobody here can say yet with 100% confidence what really did or did not happen. Could it have really happened in a non-setup fashion? Of course, and arguably it is/was inevitable. Could it also have been a "hit job"? You bet. Whenever you've got people in one camp with millions if not billions in existing revenue on the line, you have a motive. And the means and method are both easy and obvious.

carbonica 15y ago
> This is incredibly naive. No, it's based on all the existing evidence currently out there. > It could be the case that this was a setup. This is based on speculation. > And it would be very easy to set such a thing up. It's easy to do lots of things. > And there's an entire industry with a lot of old money invested in that industry continuing. So? Any evidence? Anything other than liking Airbnb/YC to suspect this? > That means motive. You've shown the hotel industry has motive. Not EJ. This is irrelevant. > Nobody here can say yet with 100% confidence what really did or did not happen. Nobody can say anything with 100% confidence when two stories conflict. We don't even require juries to be 100% confident, we ask them to be sure beyond "reasonable doubt." What you have here is not a reasonable doubt. It is concocted > Could it have really happened in a non-setup fashion? Of course, and arguably it is/was inevitable. Yes, it was inevitable. This is a good reason to suspect > Could it also have been a "hit job"? You bet. My water could have been poisoned by my next-door neighbor because I had a loud party one night. I have no reason to believe this, but it could be happening! In fact, that silly scenario has better motive (which you emphasize) than your concoction since it actually ties the accused to the motive, which you haven't done. > Whenever you've got people in one camp with millions if not billions in existing revenue on the line, you have a motive. And the means and method are both easy and obvious. That's a delightful story, but again... you've presented nothing but pure speculation.
class_vs_object 15y ago
> It could be the case that this was a setup It could also be the case that the founders running Airbnb have a mildly sociopathic personality style. (I don't mean that in a derogatory sense - I'm calling it a personality style, not a personality disorder... while such a personality style might represent a disability when it comes to forming intimate personal relationships, it would be an advantage when hustling to get a startup off the ground.) Of course, when such individuals are called on for a display of genuine empathy, compassion, or humanity, they will be left feeling confused and won't know what hit them - they might even start to believe that they are being victimized.

dredmorbius 15y ago

The real point is that the AirBnB situation is untenable regardless of who's telling the truth. Suppose EJ is lying. Well, then, this business has a profound reputation risk which can be exploited by any given individual using (or claiming to use) the service. A risk which is going to tie heavily into some fundamental problems in vetting both guests and hosts. Suppose AirBnB are lying. The company is exposed as being ungrateful, etc., as Paul Carr's excellent piece notes (conflict of interest or no, he captures the situation well). Suppose EJ and AirBnB are both being truthful. Neither disputes that the house-trashing occurred, there's been some contact between AirBnB, and apparently at least partial assistance in finding accommodations, etc. We've still got a woman who's been hugely inconvenienced, has suffered real, physical, and psychological losses, and needs to put her life back together. And we've got a company with a real and apparently intractable problem with its business model, possibly running scared. Inviting strangers off the Internet to come stay at your house is going to involve some very real risks, and some percentage, however small, of AirBnB experiences are going to end very badly. As I noted in an earlier post on this subject, what happened to EJ isn't the worst possible case. A guest copying keys, returning to the home, raping and killing the host, would be ... a pretty bad day. I think AirBnB are going to have to re-think what they're offering, whom they're catering to (for both guests and hosts), and what they can do to mitigate risks (guests are also assuming risks, though not to their real estate as hosts are). Disintermediation via the Web is great when you've got a happy, happy crowd of people involved. The lesson from history is that this isn't a stable or scalable situation. Woodstock was followed by Altamont. I've got my own suspicions as to who seems more credible, or at least is acting to type. None of us will know until more facts are known, police and criminal investigations are concluded (and perhaps tried), and the dispute between EJ and AirBnB is settled (perhaps also going to court). Even then much may remain vague, under seal, or otherwise obscured. None of that changes any of what I've said: AirBnB simply involves too much risk exposure to all parties: hosts, gusts, AirBnB, and its investors/creditors. It's going to have to restructure fundamentally, or fold.

justincormack 15y ago
The risk point is interesting. All sides have asymmetric information, and the marketplace makes no attempt to deal with this. Most successful markets do something to even up these risks, or to mitigate them, or you get the classic market for lemons situation.

llambda 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. Her anonymous status really says something, like what? Well it says she's anonymous, that's it. Nothing more. This is pure hyperbole. The simple fact is, we don't have all the facts. It's her word against Airbnb's word. Neither side is more credible without more facts. Clearly both have demonstrated they will reframe their situation as circumstances change[1][2][3]. [1] http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html "I would be remiss if I didn’t pause here to emphasize that the customer service team at airbnb.com has been wonderful, giving this crime their full attention. They have called often, expressing empathy, support, and genuine concern for my welfare. They have offered to help me recover emotionally and financially, and are working with SFPD to track down these criminals." An initial perspective, pre-Internet mob: "EJ" made a first post about how helpful Airbnb has been, stating they have offered to provide "emotional and financial support". [2] http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/07/airbnb-nightmare-no-end-in-sight.html http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/07/airbnb-nightmare... "Airbnb has not assisted me in securing my safety, if that is the implication being made in Chesky's article" and "But the staff at Airbnb has not made a positive contribution to me personally or my situation in any way, particularly since June 30." Then in her second blog post she backtracks and claims that Airbnb has done effectively nothing to help her. [3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822721 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822721 "Airbnb has been offering to fix it, from the very beginning. From the beginning they offered to pay to get her a new place and new stuff, and do whatever else she wanted." Here pg is commenting in regards to information he received from Airbnb, apparently contradicting the latest "EJ" post but corroborating the original.

Terretta 15y ago
Michael Arrington · Top Commenter · Founder at TechCrunch "He said they would not reimburse her for damages, then talked about how they're just a service. Then we talked about something else for a bit. Then I read him what I wrote about what he said. then he said ok, but maybe we are doing something for her. I asked him if he wanted to me to write that they have no liability for damages at all, that they are just a service, that they are only helping her and the police find the suspect, and then say that the spokesperson changed his mind and said that maybe they were helping her but he wasn't sure and he had to check with customer service and get back to me? I suggested he figure it out and email me any corrections, which he did. It was one of the more amateurish moments I've seen, and if I had quoted the poor guy directly he would have looked like a fool."

michaelcampbell 15y ago

> The only reason I can see to doubt EJ's story is if you're in the "this is a conspiracy against AirBnB" camp. Really? The ONLY reason? Your superlative-fu is strong.