3 ms·

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 ar

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.

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.