6 ms·

I find it odd that AirBnB is consitently pointed at as a resounding success when, alongside Uber/Lyft/TaskRabbit/the now shutdown maid service, it simply relies

by zajd 11y ago

I find it odd that AirBnB is consitently pointed at as a resounding success when, alongside Uber/Lyft/TaskRabbit/the now shutdown maid service, it simply relies on literally breaking the law and hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws. Granted, AirBnB doesn't have the same "fuck the worker" mindset as the others, but I still feel like the "sharing econony" is far from an established sure thing. Then again, if you own stock in AirBnB I doubt it matters at this point.

staunch 11y ago
Airbnb has the "fuck the neighbors" mindset. Interesting way to think of the inherent evilness of different companies. Google and Facebook have the "fuck user privacy" mindset. Microsoft has a "fuck competitors up" mindset. This is fun.
- zajd 11y ago
  I think the analogy breaks down when you consider what sharing economy companies do is explicitly illegal, especially in the places they operate. Granted, there's been differing levels of enforcement from various agencies, but Hillary has been mentioning addressing it from the federal level. Point being, there are probably changes/regulations coming to the current free for all that is the sharing economy.
- reitzensteinm 11y ago
  I recently went travelling and used it. An old woman opened the door to the apartment building for me when the lock was giving me trouble, then was then confused then concerned that she didn't recognize me. I used it once before, in Barcelona, staying in the flat of a wonderful couple who we got along well with and it was like visiting relatives. This time, it felt like we were saving a buck, and the owner making a buck, by scaring old ladies. I guess it's back to hotels and hostels.
  - TheAnimus 11y ago
    I too have had some mixed experiences. A B&B in Rome, where the host had elegantly decorated our room, provided fresh flowers each day all whilst respecting our privacy. Contrasted with a flat in residential block where one of the neighbours started shouting loudly at my girlfriend, I do not speak French (she is fluent) and didn't have any idea if things where about to get violent. It turns out the previous guests had been making lots of noise late at night, being tourists we where of course staying up much later than we would normally. It's embarrassing having someone complain about your sex noises. Another time we simply couldn't find or contact the host. Airbnb did not help in this matter at all. Contrasted to a friends experience on NYE when a booking.com room turned out to not be available, he ended up in the Shangri La hotel. It's clear AirBnB doesn't help you when things go wrong. As such I'd never use them for an important visit, or a visit during an event.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Nadya 11y ago
  What's the difference between AirBNB and being good enough friends with people to stay at their place for a night or two - or even a week? The exchange of money? I occasionally give my own family money if I inconvenience them for several days. It is illegal for me to pull to the side of a free-way and pick up a stranger who's car broke down/ran out of gas to give them a ride to the nearest gas station/place they were trying to get to. I find it absolutely absurd that it is illegal to help someone. Moreso on the merits of "helping strangers is bad, but it's legal if they are friends or family". I have a very loose definition of "friend". So where do I draw the line between legal ridesharing (giving a friend a ride to the airport for $20) and illegal ridesharing (giving a stranger a ride to the airport for $20)? Legitimate curiosity - so if someone would like to clarify why one is OK but the other is bad, I'd love to hear it.
  - justathrow2k 11y ago
    You must have a very loose definition of help, too, if you consider renting your property for profit as act of help as opposed to a self serving act with the aim being lining ones pockets.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      My definition agrees with the dictionary definition, which I don't consider very loose. You can still help someone without being altruistic. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, so I recognize I tread a fine line here, unlike the aforementioned, I do not see a reason to differentiate between the following two actions: a) I let someone stay the night in my house and they offered me $60 as a thank you in return for the hospitality, I initially decline but they continue to insist so I take the $60. b) I charged for someone to stay the night in my house and they agreed to pay $60 to stay at my house instead of an alternative place (and/or sleeping in their car/on the street) I guess as a couchsurfer I have a different moral perspective about the act of sleeping in someone's house, offering money, accepting money, and bargaining. E: A reply to this comment was deleted, comparing that A helps all people and B helps people "willing to pay". My response to that is below: You're still helping someone in either scenario. The pool of people you are willing or able to help is smaller in B than A, but you are still helping someone. Again - helping someone else does not need to be a selfless, altruistic act. "Instead of spending $80 at a hotel, you can spend $60 at my place and you can join me for dinner." By saving you $20, I have helped you. You saved $60 and had a place to sleep. Your alternatives were: 1. Sleep in car for free 2. Find someone willing to help you for cheaper and/or free 3. Sleep at a more expensive place By giving you a superior option to 1 and 3 and you failing to find 2, I am still helping you. Would I be more altruistic if I let you stay for free? Sure. But to say I'm not helping you when I'm saving you $20 is stretching the definition of "help" to include altruistic behavior.
- MichaelCrawford 11y ago
  While Microsoft is content to merely fuck its own W-2 permanent employs, it tears out the spleens of its contract programmers with rusty entrenching tools. I thought I would have a really nice office with a door I could shut. Instead I was required to sit in - I Swear I'm Not Making This Up - "The Boiler Room" with some other contract programmers. I haven't had the headspace to deal with it yet but I'm going to drop a dime to the Redmond Fire Marshall and King County Code Inspector to have a lot at The Boiler Room. The Mind Simply Reels.
Swizec 11y ago
Wasn't that historically how laws have changed? More particularly, the people want this. Because the people like it. The economy is rough for everyone outside Silicon Valley right now and they love the fact that with some hustling they can make a good side income. Any company that helps people make money will be loved by people and when the people pressure the government, that's a very powerful thing. Remember, Al Capone was loved by the people because he funneled a lot of his money into helping the poor and funding soup kitchens and things like that. That made it much much harder for the government to take him out. But unlike Al Capone, who was considered a gangster and a crook even by the people who loved him, the sharing economy is seen as morally good. People think they should be able to rent out their apartment whenever they want. They think they should be able to give people rides and so on. These companies are doing nothing wrong in the eye of the people, they only laws they are breaking are bureaucratic laws. Which are the kind of laws people break all the time anyway. Not saying those laws don't exist for a reason, because they do. But they've been in effect for so long that the reason has fallen out of the public conscience and people don't understand why these "outdated" laws shouldn't be broken. At the end of the day, taxis don't drive around London with a bale of hay in their trunk like they're supposed to. I may have trailed off there, my point is that in the eye of the masses, these companies are doing the right thing. And that's powerful.
- zajd 11y ago
  Yes, some laws are silly. Worker protections though? I don't think there's much to cheer about when the reason many of these sharing companies are so profitable is because they basically eliminate using employees for their "unskilled"(read: job markets with an excess of employable people) labor. Also I would dispute that people(edit: this is basically impossible to prove, it'd be nice to see some data) see the sharing economy as "morally good". I certainly don't. Not because I don't think people should be allowed to share, but because I don't think corporations should be able to 1099 what are obviously employees in order to cut costs. edit. I guess I'm getting downvoted because worker protections actually are considered a bad thing here? smh
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    I agree with you, and I think companies are abusing the word "sharing." If I lend my neighbor a tool, that's sharing. If I bring cookies in to work and put them in the break room for everybody, that's sharing. If I visit a website, order something and pay for it, then it's not sharing - it's ordering a product or service. I don't care who actually owns the car or the room.
derefr 11y ago
I think the "social impact" in the above quote is more interesting than the "financial impact." It's not just their most successful business, it's the business that is most reshaping the world—doing the most controversial things, affecting laws and regulations wherever it goes, etc.
larrys 11y ago
"hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws" I think what you mean to say perhaps was "raise enough money to change the laws by hiring lawyers and political operatives that know how to work the system".
roymurdock 11y ago
This will be even more pertinent to startups in the new "hot" industry of wetware/biotech. It's one thing to break up a dumb taxi/hotel cartel by allocating capital more efficiently through iphone apps and good customer service (albeit illegally). It's another thing to perform rigorous scientific testing an analysis of drugs, treatments, hardware, etc. that will be interfacing with fathers, mothers, children; human beings who could die as a result of the fail fast, break things SV startup mentality.
- Fomite 11y ago
  This. I'd be very worried about the "regulations are for other people" mentality that pervades some firms - that's not something I want in my biotech.
BurningFrog 11y ago
Some laws should be broken. I'm sure you have your own list of exceptions.

by zajd 11y ago

staunch 11y ago

Airbnb has the "fuck the neighbors" mindset. Interesting way to think of the inherent evilness of different companies. Google and Facebook have the "fuck user privacy" mindset. Microsoft has a "fuck competitors up" mindset. This is fun.

zajd 11y ago
I think the analogy breaks down when you consider what sharing economy companies do is explicitly illegal, especially in the places they operate. Granted, there's been differing levels of enforcement from various agencies, but Hillary has been mentioning addressing it from the federal level. Point being, there are probably changes/regulations coming to the current free for all that is the sharing economy.
reitzensteinm 11y ago
I recently went travelling and used it. An old woman opened the door to the apartment building for me when the lock was giving me trouble, then was then confused then concerned that she didn't recognize me. I used it once before, in Barcelona, staying in the flat of a wonderful couple who we got along well with and it was like visiting relatives. This time, it felt like we were saving a buck, and the owner making a buck, by scaring old ladies. I guess it's back to hotels and hostels.
- TheAnimus 11y ago
  I too have had some mixed experiences. A B&B in Rome, where the host had elegantly decorated our room, provided fresh flowers each day all whilst respecting our privacy. Contrasted with a flat in residential block where one of the neighbours started shouting loudly at my girlfriend, I do not speak French (she is fluent) and didn't have any idea if things where about to get violent. It turns out the previous guests had been making lots of noise late at night, being tourists we where of course staying up much later than we would normally. It's embarrassing having someone complain about your sex noises. Another time we simply couldn't find or contact the host. Airbnb did not help in this matter at all. Contrasted to a friends experience on NYE when a booking.com room turned out to not be available, he ended up in the Shangri La hotel. It's clear AirBnB doesn't help you when things go wrong. As such I'd never use them for an important visit, or a visit during an event.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Nadya 11y ago
What's the difference between AirBNB and being good enough friends with people to stay at their place for a night or two - or even a week? The exchange of money? I occasionally give my own family money if I inconvenience them for several days. It is illegal for me to pull to the side of a free-way and pick up a stranger who's car broke down/ran out of gas to give them a ride to the nearest gas station/place they were trying to get to. I find it absolutely absurd that it is illegal to help someone. Moreso on the merits of "helping strangers is bad, but it's legal if they are friends or family". I have a very loose definition of "friend". So where do I draw the line between legal ridesharing (giving a friend a ride to the airport for $20) and illegal ridesharing (giving a stranger a ride to the airport for $20)? Legitimate curiosity - so if someone would like to clarify why one is OK but the other is bad, I'd love to hear it.
- justathrow2k 11y ago
  You must have a very loose definition of help, too, if you consider renting your property for profit as act of help as opposed to a self serving act with the aim being lining ones pockets.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    My definition agrees with the dictionary definition, which I don't consider very loose. You can still help someone without being altruistic. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, so I recognize I tread a fine line here, unlike the aforementioned, I do not see a reason to differentiate between the following two actions: a) I let someone stay the night in my house and they offered me $60 as a thank you in return for the hospitality, I initially decline but they continue to insist so I take the $60. b) I charged for someone to stay the night in my house and they agreed to pay $60 to stay at my house instead of an alternative place (and/or sleeping in their car/on the street) I guess as a couchsurfer I have a different moral perspective about the act of sleeping in someone's house, offering money, accepting money, and bargaining. E: A reply to this comment was deleted, comparing that A helps all people and B helps people "willing to pay". My response to that is below: You're still helping someone in either scenario. The pool of people you are willing or able to help is smaller in B than A, but you are still helping someone. Again - helping someone else does not need to be a selfless, altruistic act. "Instead of spending $80 at a hotel, you can spend $60 at my place and you can join me for dinner." By saving you $20, I have helped you. You saved $60 and had a place to sleep. Your alternatives were: 1. Sleep in car for free 2. Find someone willing to help you for cheaper and/or free 3. Sleep at a more expensive place By giving you a superior option to 1 and 3 and you failing to find 2, I am still helping you. Would I be more altruistic if I let you stay for free? Sure. But to say I'm not helping you when I'm saving you $20 is stretching the definition of "help" to include altruistic behavior.
MichaelCrawford 11y ago
While Microsoft is content to merely fuck its own W-2 permanent employs, it tears out the spleens of its contract programmers with rusty entrenching tools. I thought I would have a really nice office with a door I could shut. Instead I was required to sit in - I Swear I'm Not Making This Up - "The Boiler Room" with some other contract programmers. I haven't had the headspace to deal with it yet but I'm going to drop a dime to the Redmond Fire Marshall and King County Code Inspector to have a lot at The Boiler Room. The Mind Simply Reels.

Swizec 11y ago

Wasn't that historically how laws have changed? More particularly, the people want this. Because the people like it. The economy is rough for everyone outside Silicon Valley right now and they love the fact that with some hustling they can make a good side income. Any company that helps people make money will be loved by people and when the people pressure the government, that's a very powerful thing. Remember, Al Capone was loved by the people because he funneled a lot of his money into helping the poor and funding soup kitchens and things like that. That made it much much harder for the government to take him out. But unlike Al Capone, who was considered a gangster and a crook even by the people who loved him, the sharing economy is seen as morally good. People think they should be able to rent out their apartment whenever they want. They think they should be able to give people rides and so on. These companies are doing nothing wrong in the eye of the people, they only laws they are breaking are bureaucratic laws. Which are the kind of laws people break all the time anyway. Not saying those laws don't exist for a reason, because they do. But they've been in effect for so long that the reason has fallen out of the public conscience and people don't understand why these "outdated" laws shouldn't be broken. At the end of the day, taxis don't drive around London with a bale of hay in their trunk like they're supposed to. I may have trailed off there, my point is that in the eye of the masses, these companies are doing the right thing. And that's powerful.

zajd 11y ago
Yes, some laws are silly. Worker protections though? I don't think there's much to cheer about when the reason many of these sharing companies are so profitable is because they basically eliminate using employees for their "unskilled"(read: job markets with an excess of employable people) labor. Also I would dispute that people(edit: this is basically impossible to prove, it'd be nice to see some data) see the sharing economy as "morally good". I certainly don't. Not because I don't think people should be allowed to share, but because I don't think corporations should be able to 1099 what are obviously employees in order to cut costs. edit. I guess I'm getting downvoted because worker protections actually are considered a bad thing here? smh
- jlarocco 11y ago
  I agree with you, and I think companies are abusing the word "sharing." If I lend my neighbor a tool, that's sharing. If I bring cookies in to work and put them in the break room for everybody, that's sharing. If I visit a website, order something and pay for it, then it's not sharing - it's ordering a product or service. I don't care who actually owns the car or the room.

derefr 11y ago

I think the "social impact" in the above quote is more interesting than the "financial impact." It's not just their most successful business, it's the business that is most reshaping the world—doing the most controversial things, affecting laws and regulations wherever it goes, etc.

larrys 11y ago

"hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws" I think what you mean to say perhaps was "raise enough money to change the laws by hiring lawyers and political operatives that know how to work the system".

roymurdock 11y ago

This will be even more pertinent to startups in the new "hot" industry of wetware/biotech. It's one thing to break up a dumb taxi/hotel cartel by allocating capital more efficiently through iphone apps and good customer service (albeit illegally). It's another thing to perform rigorous scientific testing an analysis of drugs, treatments, hardware, etc. that will be interfacing with fathers, mothers, children; human beings who could die as a result of the fail fast, break things SV startup mentality.

Fomite 11y ago
This. I'd be very worried about the "regulations are for other people" mentality that pervades some firms - that's not something I want in my biotech.

BurningFrog 11y ago

Some laws should be broken. I'm sure you have your own list of exceptions.