5 ms·

What the internet is doing is taking our private lives and making them public. If I sell an apple to you from my lunchbox, am I a food vendor and need to get a

What the internet is doing is taking our private lives and making them public. If I sell an apple to you from my lunchbox, am I a food vendor and need to get a license? What if I sell 100 apples? A thousand? Government has created these boxes around what it considers employees, restaurants, hotels, businesses, and so forth. Then the industry has waddled up to the trough and helped create a web of laws that prevent just any random schmuck from getting into one of these official categories. Now that we have this ton of innovation, expect a lot of pushback. This article only scratches the surface. If you are acting in the capacity of a hotel, should you have health inspections? Carry a certain kind of insurance? Or are you a landlord, but just for a day? In that case you have all sorts of tenant rights and landlord responsibilities to consider. And the key question behind all of this is: do we want government to apply the same kinds of broad solutions we needed to safeguard consumers in 1850 (I exaggerate for effect) in the hotelling business to one guy who rents his house for a couple of weeks a year? If not, what is the difference? We're going to have to choose: either accept massive government intrusion into every small detail of our lives (monitored by the internet) such that we still fit into this concept of a 1950 economy or deal with a world where these risks we used to not have to worry about are commonplace. Like I've always said, SOPA and such are just the beginning of the battle. Lots more to come. It's not just big industry protecting it's turf; there'll be a lot of that. It's the problem that the structure of the governmental system doesn't match up to the actual way people are beginning to live their lives. That's a much more fundamental issue. I don't think legalizing AirBnb is going to help internet entrepreneurs any more than brandishing a squirt gun is going to save you from an armed robbery. The best it will do is cause an imperceptible delay in the oncoming storm.

_delirium 14y ago
I think your dichotomy is a bit too stark, and the result will end up having to be some mixture of traditional regulation and exemptions for small-scale activity. With AirBnB, the guy renting his house a couple weeks a year I agree is not a model that makes sense to shoehorn into 1950s hotel regulation. But what's causing problems is that a number of AirBnB renters are literally unlicensed hotels, of the slummy, bug-infested, inadequate-fire-escapes sort that the original hotel regulation was intended to put an end to. They're not any sort of new 2012 problem, but exactly the same 1950s problem (and in NYC, often quite literally in the same old buildings). The problem isn't you or me renting out our apartments, but the guy in NYC who's converting an apartment block into a full-time commercial hotel without meeting the proper safety/health standards. So far, I think this is a minor problem on AirBnB except in NYC, where slum-hotel listings are starting to proliferate, often dishonestly listed as if they were someone personally renting out their private apartment (though the review system does help limit this after the first few people are fooled).
- smokeyj 14y ago
  "I think your dichotomy is a bit too stark" Kids are getting their lemonade stands shut-down by cops. Traveling vendors are getting shut-down in cities because they're competing with established restaurants. The Amish are getting raided by feds for selling raw milk. I can keep going if you wish.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    I agree, and I think that's why there will need to be exemptions for small-scale independent vendors. You didn't address my point about the continuing need for regulation of large-scale vendors for essentially the traditional reasons, though. Does the fact that we should let kids run lemonade stands without being hassled also mean that full-scale commercial hotels in Brooklyn should be unlicensed and not subject to health/safety inspections? On the latter point, I don't see the situation as much different than the 1950s: if someone is trying to convert 30 apartments in a building to a de-facto hotel, that's the use-case that hotel regulations were put in place to address. The new 2010s phenomenon is the person who's renting out their personal apartment intermittently, and which current regulations are too inflexible to accommodate. So I think a more flexible range of policies are needed.
    - smokeyj 14y ago
      You're asking me if we should dictate to the entire population which risks are acceptable to take. I would say there is no logical methodology to accomplish this. It's okay to drive a motorcycle, but not okay to buy lemonade from a kid? It's okay to smoke cigarettes, but not okay to sell unregulated securities? Risk should be legal and honestly disclosed. The only crime should be intentionally misrepresenting risk -- and this can easily be done in contract.
    - larrys 14y ago
      "The new 2010s phenomenon is the person who's renting out their personal apartment intermittently, and which current regulations are too inflexible to accommodate." I'm not a fan of regulation by any means as I see it adding to the cost of products and service. But by and large they also exist to protect people from their folly and what they don't know about. (The cancer comes of course from when that theory gets out of whack or when groups take advantage of that to exclude legitimate operators..) "Does the fact that we should let kids run lemonade stands without being hassled also mean that full-scale commercial hotels in Brooklyn should be unlicensed and not subject to health/safety inspections?" Kids running lemonade stands where you see the kids are running the stand is a risk any typical person would know exists (since they don't know if the kid mixed the lemonade or a parent etc. So they can judge the risk. (Besides being clearly grandfathered in so many ways.)) But kids making lemondade and selling it to the corner store is a risk that people need to be protected against. The key being is a person reasonably able to know the risk that is involved in what they are doing. So in the case of airbnb I'm not sure people understand the risk they are taking when doing this on a large scale (both from the renting end and the using end). And that is what they need to be protected against.
rprasad 14y ago
1 apple? No. 100 apples? Maybe. 1000 apples? Yes. You don't even need these "boxes" because you can apply common sense: you are selling a lot of apples. This makes you a "vendor." Apples are food, hence you are a "food vendor." At that point, you have a substantial number of customers. If the apples you sell are contaminated (by your or a supplier), we need to be able to track down your customers for public health reasons. Hence, the license. This does not require massive government intervention. That exists because of all of the cruft built up over decades to prevent bad apples (pun intended) from abusing loopholes in the rules. Food vendor licensing has a common basis with hotel licensing. SOPA is a red herring, as there is no public safety basis that ties it to food or hospitality.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  The problem with this is that different people are going to have different common sense ideas of where the cutoff is, so the numbers have to get written down. Then you to worry about how many things constitute an "item", like if I'm selling boxes of packs of raisins do you count the boxes, the packs, or the raisins? And is the count different for apples and hams? Pretty soon you're arguing in court about whether a Fig Newton is a cookie or not. But then again, we're already arguing in court about whether or not a Fig Newton is a cookie for purposes of sales tax, so this isn't an infeasible solution, just one that imposes costs we should be aware of.
larrys 14y ago
"we needed to safeguard consumers in 1850 (I exaggerate for effect) in the hotelling business to one guy who rents his house for a couple of weeks a year? If not, what is the difference? " My law of large numbers: One guy who rents out his house for a couple of weeks is de minimis and can and will be overlooked. 1000 guys who rent out for a couple of weeks is not de minimis. Problems tend to get solved and addressed when there is a bad event or outcome or a large number of people appear to be doing something objectionable to someone. The more events happening the greater the chance of something bad happening, more people being affected and something being done about it. A single user will fly under the radar. The mere fact that a larger percentage of people are doing something (in this case renting out their rooms) means there is a problem that could happen that needs to be addressed.

_delirium 14y ago

I think your dichotomy is a bit too stark, and the result will end up having to be some mixture of traditional regulation and exemptions for small-scale activity. With AirBnB, the guy renting his house a couple weeks a year I agree is not a model that makes sense to shoehorn into 1950s hotel regulation. But what's causing problems is that a number of AirBnB renters are literally unlicensed hotels, of the slummy, bug-infested, inadequate-fire-escapes sort that the original hotel regulation was intended to put an end to. They're not any sort of new 2012 problem, but exactly the same 1950s problem (and in NYC, often quite literally in the same old buildings). The problem isn't you or me renting out our apartments, but the guy in NYC who's converting an apartment block into a full-time commercial hotel without meeting the proper safety/health standards. So far, I think this is a minor problem on AirBnB except in NYC, where slum-hotel listings are starting to proliferate, often dishonestly listed as if they were someone personally renting out their private apartment (though the review system does help limit this after the first few people are fooled).

smokeyj 14y ago
"I think your dichotomy is a bit too stark" Kids are getting their lemonade stands shut-down by cops. Traveling vendors are getting shut-down in cities because they're competing with established restaurants. The Amish are getting raided by feds for selling raw milk. I can keep going if you wish.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I agree, and I think that's why there will need to be exemptions for small-scale independent vendors. You didn't address my point about the continuing need for regulation of large-scale vendors for essentially the traditional reasons, though. Does the fact that we should let kids run lemonade stands without being hassled also mean that full-scale commercial hotels in Brooklyn should be unlicensed and not subject to health/safety inspections? On the latter point, I don't see the situation as much different than the 1950s: if someone is trying to convert 30 apartments in a building to a de-facto hotel, that's the use-case that hotel regulations were put in place to address. The new 2010s phenomenon is the person who's renting out their personal apartment intermittently, and which current regulations are too inflexible to accommodate. So I think a more flexible range of policies are needed.
  - smokeyj 14y ago
    You're asking me if we should dictate to the entire population which risks are acceptable to take. I would say there is no logical methodology to accomplish this. It's okay to drive a motorcycle, but not okay to buy lemonade from a kid? It's okay to smoke cigarettes, but not okay to sell unregulated securities? Risk should be legal and honestly disclosed. The only crime should be intentionally misrepresenting risk -- and this can easily be done in contract.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "The new 2010s phenomenon is the person who's renting out their personal apartment intermittently, and which current regulations are too inflexible to accommodate." I'm not a fan of regulation by any means as I see it adding to the cost of products and service. But by and large they also exist to protect people from their folly and what they don't know about. (The cancer comes of course from when that theory gets out of whack or when groups take advantage of that to exclude legitimate operators..) "Does the fact that we should let kids run lemonade stands without being hassled also mean that full-scale commercial hotels in Brooklyn should be unlicensed and not subject to health/safety inspections?" Kids running lemonade stands where you see the kids are running the stand is a risk any typical person would know exists (since they don't know if the kid mixed the lemonade or a parent etc. So they can judge the risk. (Besides being clearly grandfathered in so many ways.)) But kids making lemondade and selling it to the corner store is a risk that people need to be protected against. The key being is a person reasonably able to know the risk that is involved in what they are doing. So in the case of airbnb I'm not sure people understand the risk they are taking when doing this on a large scale (both from the renting end and the using end). And that is what they need to be protected against.

rprasad 14y ago

1 apple? No. 100 apples? Maybe. 1000 apples? Yes. You don't even need these "boxes" because you can apply common sense: you are selling a lot of apples. This makes you a "vendor." Apples are food, hence you are a "food vendor." At that point, you have a substantial number of customers. If the apples you sell are contaminated (by your or a supplier), we need to be able to track down your customers for public health reasons. Hence, the license. This does not require massive government intervention. That exists because of all of the cruft built up over decades to prevent bad apples (pun intended) from abusing loopholes in the rules. Food vendor licensing has a common basis with hotel licensing. SOPA is a red herring, as there is no public safety basis that ties it to food or hospitality.

Symmetry 14y ago
The problem with this is that different people are going to have different common sense ideas of where the cutoff is, so the numbers have to get written down. Then you to worry about how many things constitute an "item", like if I'm selling boxes of packs of raisins do you count the boxes, the packs, or the raisins? And is the count different for apples and hams? Pretty soon you're arguing in court about whether a Fig Newton is a cookie or not. But then again, we're already arguing in court about whether or not a Fig Newton is a cookie for purposes of sales tax, so this isn't an infeasible solution, just one that imposes costs we should be aware of.

larrys 14y ago

"we needed to safeguard consumers in 1850 (I exaggerate for effect) in the hotelling business to one guy who rents his house for a couple of weeks a year? If not, what is the difference? " My law of large numbers: One guy who rents out his house for a couple of weeks is de minimis and can and will be overlooked. 1000 guys who rent out for a couple of weeks is not de minimis. Problems tend to get solved and addressed when there is a bad event or outcome or a large number of people appear to be doing something objectionable to someone. The more events happening the greater the chance of something bad happening, more people being affected and something being done about it. A single user will fly under the radar. The mere fact that a larger percentage of people are doing something (in this case renting out their rooms) means there is a problem that could happen that needs to be addressed.