3 ms·

> Because Janet didn’t have her ID on her, Turner set up the account under Carl’s name, using his phone, email, and ID information. Wouldn't this violate terms

> Because Janet didn’t have her ID on her, Turner set up the account under Carl’s name, using his phone, email, and ID information. Wouldn't this violate terms of service? Sounds like a really bad idea in any case. How else would they be able to "associate" her account with Carl's but for this act?

nocoiner 3y ago
It seems like the article is going out if it’s way to elide this point, but I think the next paragraph explains what happened. > Shortly afterward, Carl received an email informing him that he was not allowed to be an Airbnb user because of information that had surfaced on a background check. The report, which Motherboard reviewed, showed that Carl had been convicted of two non-violent offenses in 2015 and 2016—theft and drug possession, which Turner said she had been unaware of. Hoping to help, Turner decided to book a place to stay with her mom, saying she would stay with her and help her out until they found a permanent solution. It reads to me like Turner signed up to rent a place and wrote on the form that she and her mom would be the tenants, and Airbnb decided (apparently correctly?) that Turner was going to let banned Carl stay in her stead. The articles really not clear on when this happened or how close in time it was to Turner’s ban, so I don’t think he have enough information to know how airbnb figured out Turner and Carl were closely related, but it doesn’t seem like they were wrong either. Btw, I’m not defending airbnb here, I hate these kafkaesque determinations and private sector policing of associations. But if you’re going to sign up to be both a host and a user of airbnb (which I personally would not), it doesn’t really sound like the system led to an egregious, indefensible outcome here.

3 ms·

> Because Janet didn’t have her ID on her, Turner set up the account under Carl’s name, using his phone, email, and ID information. Wouldn't this violate terms

by PopAlongKid 3y ago

nocoiner 3y ago
It seems like the article is going out if it’s way to elide this point, but I think the next paragraph explains what happened. > Shortly afterward, Carl received an email informing him that he was not allowed to be an Airbnb user because of information that had surfaced on a background check. The report, which Motherboard reviewed, showed that Carl had been convicted of two non-violent offenses in 2015 and 2016—theft and drug possession, which Turner said she had been unaware of. Hoping to help, Turner decided to book a place to stay with her mom, saying she would stay with her and help her out until they found a permanent solution. It reads to me like Turner signed up to rent a place and wrote on the form that she and her mom would be the tenants, and Airbnb decided (apparently correctly?) that Turner was going to let banned Carl stay in her stead. The articles really not clear on when this happened or how close in time it was to Turner’s ban, so I don’t think he have enough information to know how airbnb figured out Turner and Carl were closely related, but it doesn’t seem like they were wrong either. Btw, I’m not defending airbnb here, I hate these kafkaesque determinations and private sector policing of associations. But if you’re going to sign up to be both a host and a user of airbnb (which I personally would not), it doesn’t really sound like the system led to an egregious, indefensible outcome here.