3 ms·

It's pretty remarkable how the tone here has changed in three years' time. The first ransack-gate led to all sorts of calls for AirBnB to compensate the victim

by timr 13y ago

It's pretty remarkable how the tone here has changed in three years' time. The first ransack-gate led to all sorts of calls for AirBnB to compensate the victim [1]. This time around, people seem to be blaming the guy who rented out the apartment [2]. Aside from the shift in time and the "orgy" angle, the situations are identical. Either HN has dramatically changed, or the collective attitude toward this kind of thing has shifted to a decidedly anti-host (or pro-company?) sentiment. Interesting. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813956 [2] More commentary here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7407796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7407796

true_religion 13y ago
I'd say its neither. People react to a story based on the total context, not entirely on the facts. In the previous story, (if I remember correctly), it was presented as an ordinary individual who had their place ransacked and now was afraid to live there. There was an outpouring of support due to the individual being so sympathetic and the case being delivered in such a desperate tone. In this case the guy comes of (true or not) as entitled and antagonistic. ---- That said, a careful reading of the situations shows its not factually indentical. The previous case was a home-owner. AirBnB now protects people who own the property from damage caused when leasing. This case is a renter, who was essentially running a hotel room out of his apartment--an act against his lease, and perhaps even illegal in his area.
- timr 13y ago
  You're "remembering" facts to justify your bias. Here's the original blog post from ransackgate: http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/violated-travelers-lost-faith-difficult.html http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/violated-travele... She never said anything about being an owner. As far as I can tell, she was a renter. Certainly, nobody knew if she rented or bought at the time the post hit HN. Basically, what you're saying is that you don't like the guy's tone, so you think he doesn't deserve sympathy. Glad you don't work for AirBnB customer support.
  - true_religion 13y ago
    Well I'm only refering to the articles linked to previously in this thread. In that article, they said that it was her 'house' as opposed to an apartment or the like. So I presumed she was a home owner, or at the very least a house is not a subdivision of a larger building. > Glad you don't work for AirBnB customer support. To be honest, I don't think he deserves sympathy since I don't know the full story (i.e. what exactly was damaged). But were I customer support, I'd be happy to hold his hand and have a cry with him because well.... that's the job of customer support.

by timr 13y ago

true_religion 13y ago

I'd say its neither. People react to a story based on the total context, not entirely on the facts. In the previous story, (if I remember correctly), it was presented as an ordinary individual who had their place ransacked and now was afraid to live there. There was an outpouring of support due to the individual being so sympathetic and the case being delivered in such a desperate tone. In this case the guy comes of (true or not) as entitled and antagonistic. ---- That said, a careful reading of the situations shows its not factually indentical. The previous case was a home-owner. AirBnB now protects people who own the property from damage caused when leasing. This case is a renter, who was essentially running a hotel room out of his apartment--an act against his lease, and perhaps even illegal in his area.

timr 13y ago
You're "remembering" facts to justify your bias. Here's the original blog post from ransackgate: http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/violated-travelers-lost-faith-difficult.html http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/violated-travele... She never said anything about being an owner. As far as I can tell, she was a renter. Certainly, nobody knew if she rented or bought at the time the post hit HN. Basically, what you're saying is that you don't like the guy's tone, so you think he doesn't deserve sympathy. Glad you don't work for AirBnB customer support.
- true_religion 13y ago
  Well I'm only refering to the articles linked to previously in this thread. In that article, they said that it was her 'house' as opposed to an apartment or the like. So I presumed she was a home owner, or at the very least a house is not a subdivision of a larger building. > Glad you don't work for AirBnB customer support. To be honest, I don't think he deserves sympathy since I don't know the full story (i.e. what exactly was damaged). But were I customer support, I'd be happy to hold his hand and have a cry with him because well.... that's the job of customer support.