3 ms·

Isn't a bit amoral of Airbnb that they are throwing their most active hosts under the bus? The ones with the most listings are those people that have spent the

Isn't a bit amoral of Airbnb that they are throwing their most active hosts under the bus? The ones with the most listings are those people that have spent the most time, energy and money building out the Airbnb platform and they are having their business/livelihood wiped out with no warning. To preempt what I imagine will be a response to this question, which is that these users are violating the TOS with Airbnb, I have two points: the first is that Airbnb itself is violating many "TOSs" - laws - so it doesn't give them very good moral standing here. The second point is stronger (I think), which is that Airbnb's position here is logically inconsistent. They either believe strongly that you should be able to do what you want with the properties you own, or you don't. I simply don't see why it matters if N=1 or N=10 (put differently, N=1 is not a special case that deserves being considered differently).

potatolicious 12y ago
> " I simply don't see why it matters if N=1 or N=10 (put differently, N=1 is not a special case that deserves being considered differently)." Because there is a narrative to this story that AirBnb wants to portray, which may help them in their legal battles. It's the same reason why they call themselves part of the "sharing economy" - they're trying rub a grassroots, everyman shine all over the company, deservedly or otherwise. Large, organized, professional operations run counter to this narrative. The story is supposed to be about helping the average Joe make ends meet, expect a lot of PR focus on working-class families, students, and the empowering effect of AirBnb income. Expect things that run counter to this narrative to be downplayed or eliminated.
opendais 12y ago
I wouldn't say it is amoral for them to attempt to protect themselves from anyone who was truly engaging in illegal activity which NYC might try to foist the liability for those Host's choices onto AirBnb. They need to create a narrative that it is just a few bad apples and they are empowering 'average people'. Selfish? Sure. So is every other corporation on the planet. I do think AirBnb should have been screening things better in the first place to prevent things from getting to this point. However, I'm sure that would have really slammed the breaks on their business model's growth.
bitlord_219 12y ago
There's nothing logically inconsistent here. They believe strongly that you should be able to do what you want with the properties you own (actually, the properties you rent), as long as it doesn't get them in trouble!
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mjolk 12y ago
> The ones with the most listings are those people that have spent the most time, energy and money building out the Airbnb platform and they are having their business/livelihood wiped out with no warning. Say that I sell pot on Etsy (which is illegal in NYC). Do I have a valid cause for complaining when Etsy shuts down my illegal business? In the AirBnB case, the company deserves to be fined for knowing that 13% of their available listings are illegal and not trying to actively stop the offenses. The people profiting off the criminal behaviors deserve nothing.

potatolicious 12y ago

> " I simply don't see why it matters if N=1 or N=10 (put differently, N=1 is not a special case that deserves being considered differently)." Because there is a narrative to this story that AirBnb wants to portray, which may help them in their legal battles. It's the same reason why they call themselves part of the "sharing economy" - they're trying rub a grassroots, everyman shine all over the company, deservedly or otherwise. Large, organized, professional operations run counter to this narrative. The story is supposed to be about helping the average Joe make ends meet, expect a lot of PR focus on working-class families, students, and the empowering effect of AirBnb income. Expect things that run counter to this narrative to be downplayed or eliminated.

opendais 12y ago

I wouldn't say it is amoral for them to attempt to protect themselves from anyone who was truly engaging in illegal activity which NYC might try to foist the liability for those Host's choices onto AirBnb. They need to create a narrative that it is just a few bad apples and they are empowering 'average people'. Selfish? Sure. So is every other corporation on the planet. I do think AirBnb should have been screening things better in the first place to prevent things from getting to this point. However, I'm sure that would have really slammed the breaks on their business model's growth.

bitlord_219 12y ago

There's nothing logically inconsistent here. They believe strongly that you should be able to do what you want with the properties you own (actually, the properties you rent), as long as it doesn't get them in trouble!

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mjolk 12y ago

> The ones with the most listings are those people that have spent the most time, energy and money building out the Airbnb platform and they are having their business/livelihood wiped out with no warning. Say that I sell pot on Etsy (which is illegal in NYC). Do I have a valid cause for complaining when Etsy shuts down my illegal business? In the AirBnB case, the company deserves to be fined for knowing that 13% of their available listings are illegal and not trying to actively stop the offenses. The people profiting off the criminal behaviors deserve nothing.