3 ms·

Competitive disruption with substantial negative externalities considered harmful. Yours is a convenient, feel-good, but ultimately incorrect and intellectuall

Competitive disruption with substantial negative externalities considered harmful. Yours is a convenient, feel-good, but ultimately incorrect and intellectually insufficient narrative. As is any narrative where one side is the altruistic freedom fighter and the other side might as well have vampire fangs on. The world isn't this simple. This isn't directed strictly at you - it's a general attitude in the Silicon Valley echo-chamber that I find grating. Have we issued so many press releases extolling our own virtues that we now completely believe it ourselves? Are we so enamored with ourselves that we can't imagine any other reason for people not liking what we do except pure greed and unmitigated corruption? Hell, I like AirBnb. I use it. But let's not pretend that there are no problems with it, and that there are no legitimate reasons to object to it.

dmix 13y ago
I've read the other AirBnB threads on here discussing the externalities. And I still think the cities would be better off with AirBnB than without it. The opportunities for property owners to profit as well as providing tourism/business visitors with $40 rooms is massive. It's opening up a huge new bnb industry, provides a large flow of new revenue for tourism businesses in the cities, greatly expands the amount of tourists/business visitors who can afford to visit. I'm curious which of the externalities you think can't be addressed by property owners? For example, they can have a no-airbnb policy in the rental agreements. Or liability safety waivers. Or security policies to limit flow of non-tenants. Or handled via disputes between property owners or police such as sound violations. Besides, the incentives mentioned in the article are a) the market incumbents "Montreal’s Bed and Breakfast Association" want protection and b) the government wants to protect existing tax revenue/regulation fines. At this point, it's not about externalities. It's about protecting current revenue streams. While ignoring the potential for far greater tax revenue and social benefit.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Sure, and I agree that the benefits of AirBnb ultimately outweigh the negatives. I wouldn't continue supporting them with my business if I didn't. But there are more than two choices here - there is a third choice besides "let AirBnb continue as is" and "stop everything AirBnb-like". Things like adhering to sanitation standards, paying of hotel taxes, and the rights of residents in AirBnb buildings are all legitimate reasons to oppose AirBnb in its current model. > "For example, they can have a no-airbnb policy in the rental agreements." This is already the case. This is also already the case in many condo/con-op rules. In fact, in most jurisdictions I've seen stopping AirBnb is as simple as enforcing existing laws and contracts - we don't even have to create new ones. AirBnb owes its existence not to friendly legislation, but to a lack of enforcement - a lack of enforcement that is coming to an end because of these negative externalities (and yes, lobbying by the hotel industry). > "Or liability safety waivers. Or security policies to limit flow of non-tenants. Or handled via disputes between property owners or police such as sound violations." And such is the definition of a negative externality - to offload the costs of these effects onto other tenants and even the city, without any recompense. AirBnb has created this need for additional legal cost and even additional policing yet is paying for none of it. The way your'e describing it, it sounds like AirBnb is laughing to the bank and leaving the cleanup to everyone else. In any case, my original point is not specific to AirBnb. Your original post is one that I see on HN a lot - whenever a disruptive product is opposed we scream about corruption and the greed of entrenched players, and conveniently ignore the many legitimate reasons why people might find what we do problematic. My response is a more general complaint against our collective holier-than-thou attitude where we can do no wrong, and our intellectually dishonest trend of blaming said opposition squarely on simplistic villains rather than acknowledging that technology and disruption are nuanced. Our refusal to treat our opponents with basic respect, and our propensity to label them with simplistic titles, is aggravating and annoying.
  - dmix 13y ago
    Interesting. I agree with most of what you said. AirBnB is relatively new, laws have not yet been efficiently enforced, so some costs are being offset on neighbours/cities. But I'm not convinced that a) the costs are currently so bad it requires market restrictions on AirBnB-style units and b) this a problem that the courts, cities and property owners can't handle on their own - by adapting to change. Whereas the incentives to add restrictions on the basis of protecting existing industry incumbents are very clear. ^ That motivation which so often dictates modern government policy is the basis of my villainization. Once again I see the opportunity for real economic/social benefit via technology and opportunities to address this without restricting technology or markets (such as an evolution in property law and defence). Instead I see a government rushing to add new policy, without a clear indicator that they are being representative of the best interests of their citizens ... or even themselves. This same narrative has repeatedly recurred a hundred times in the tech scene (copyright, wiretapping, unlocking phones, etc). As long as the state refuses to even attempt to evolve along with technological change and takes the market incumbents interests first, then you'll keep seeing these posts.
sultezdukes 13y ago
The incorrect and intellectually insufficient narrative is: The goal, she said, is to ensure the safety of visitors to the province. That's not the primary goal, or I would say even the secondary goal. The primary goal is obviously taxes, and the secondary goal is satisfying lobbying pressure from those that don't like the competition. But let's not pretend that there are no problems with it, and that there are no legitimate reasons to object to it. Let's not pretend that these regulators are actually honest in their arguments.

dmix 13y ago

I've read the other AirBnB threads on here discussing the externalities. And I still think the cities would be better off with AirBnB than without it. The opportunities for property owners to profit as well as providing tourism/business visitors with $40 rooms is massive. It's opening up a huge new bnb industry, provides a large flow of new revenue for tourism businesses in the cities, greatly expands the amount of tourists/business visitors who can afford to visit. I'm curious which of the externalities you think can't be addressed by property owners? For example, they can have a no-airbnb policy in the rental agreements. Or liability safety waivers. Or security policies to limit flow of non-tenants. Or handled via disputes between property owners or police such as sound violations. Besides, the incentives mentioned in the article are a) the market incumbents "Montreal’s Bed and Breakfast Association" want protection and b) the government wants to protect existing tax revenue/regulation fines. At this point, it's not about externalities. It's about protecting current revenue streams. While ignoring the potential for far greater tax revenue and social benefit.

potatolicious 13y ago
Sure, and I agree that the benefits of AirBnb ultimately outweigh the negatives. I wouldn't continue supporting them with my business if I didn't. But there are more than two choices here - there is a third choice besides "let AirBnb continue as is" and "stop everything AirBnb-like". Things like adhering to sanitation standards, paying of hotel taxes, and the rights of residents in AirBnb buildings are all legitimate reasons to oppose AirBnb in its current model. > "For example, they can have a no-airbnb policy in the rental agreements." This is already the case. This is also already the case in many condo/con-op rules. In fact, in most jurisdictions I've seen stopping AirBnb is as simple as enforcing existing laws and contracts - we don't even have to create new ones. AirBnb owes its existence not to friendly legislation, but to a lack of enforcement - a lack of enforcement that is coming to an end because of these negative externalities (and yes, lobbying by the hotel industry). > "Or liability safety waivers. Or security policies to limit flow of non-tenants. Or handled via disputes between property owners or police such as sound violations." And such is the definition of a negative externality - to offload the costs of these effects onto other tenants and even the city, without any recompense. AirBnb has created this need for additional legal cost and even additional policing yet is paying for none of it. The way your'e describing it, it sounds like AirBnb is laughing to the bank and leaving the cleanup to everyone else. In any case, my original point is not specific to AirBnb. Your original post is one that I see on HN a lot - whenever a disruptive product is opposed we scream about corruption and the greed of entrenched players, and conveniently ignore the many legitimate reasons why people might find what we do problematic. My response is a more general complaint against our collective holier-than-thou attitude where we can do no wrong, and our intellectually dishonest trend of blaming said opposition squarely on simplistic villains rather than acknowledging that technology and disruption are nuanced. Our refusal to treat our opponents with basic respect, and our propensity to label them with simplistic titles, is aggravating and annoying.
- dmix 13y ago
  Interesting. I agree with most of what you said. AirBnB is relatively new, laws have not yet been efficiently enforced, so some costs are being offset on neighbours/cities. But I'm not convinced that a) the costs are currently so bad it requires market restrictions on AirBnB-style units and b) this a problem that the courts, cities and property owners can't handle on their own - by adapting to change. Whereas the incentives to add restrictions on the basis of protecting existing industry incumbents are very clear. ^ That motivation which so often dictates modern government policy is the basis of my villainization. Once again I see the opportunity for real economic/social benefit via technology and opportunities to address this without restricting technology or markets (such as an evolution in property law and defence). Instead I see a government rushing to add new policy, without a clear indicator that they are being representative of the best interests of their citizens ... or even themselves. This same narrative has repeatedly recurred a hundred times in the tech scene (copyright, wiretapping, unlocking phones, etc). As long as the state refuses to even attempt to evolve along with technological change and takes the market incumbents interests first, then you'll keep seeing these posts.

sultezdukes 13y ago

The incorrect and intellectually insufficient narrative is: The goal, she said, is to ensure the safety of visitors to the province. That's not the primary goal, or I would say even the secondary goal. The primary goal is obviously taxes, and the secondary goal is satisfying lobbying pressure from those that don't like the competition. But let's not pretend that there are no problems with it, and that there are no legitimate reasons to object to it. Let's not pretend that these regulators are actually honest in their arguments.