51–60 of 70 posts
It's interesting that the word "photoshopped" is being used for this kind of manipulation as well.
It's just bad writing. It muddies their actual meaning, and an unfortunate metaphor that gets in the way--does more to confuse than illuminate. These guys are onto something big, but they're not great at presenting it.
That title puts a pretty heavy spin on the story, so we changed it to a factual, representative sentence from the article. If someone suggests a better title, we can change it again.
The source title was good: "How Airbnb's Data hid the Facts in New York City". This is a damning article for AirBnB and they need to respond. Let's not try to hide it.
That doesn't mean we turn off moderation altogether, though. Many commenters were pointing out that the article's claims about wrongdoing exceeded the evidence it presented. In such cases it's normal HN practice to replace a tendentious title with a more neutral and accurate one, preferably using representative language from the article. We do this routinely.
A good title on HN is accurate and neutral. A bad title is misleading or linkbait. In my view the article's title was linkbait (making a juicy claim of wrongdoing and a reference to "The Facts" as if there is one set of Facts and they know what it is). If people feel strongly about this I'm happy to change it back, but this title replacement is so standard and the current title so much more factual that it would clearly be a breach of normal practice to do so.
That title puts a pretty heavy spin on the story, so we changed it to a factual, representative sentence from the article. If someone suggests a better title, we can change it again.
"AirBnB caught facilitating wide scale illegal activity"?
Devils advocate: Suppose your stats are biased by a % of bad listings (fake, bad, etc.) that violate some rule. Would you want to include them in your numbers? If having the correct statistics (i.e. excluding these bad listings) was important for regulatory or marketing purposes, then fixing this before the report is part of the fiduciary duty of the firm with its shareholders, so no surprise here.
To avoid, you know, getting caught with their pants down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just bad writing. It muddies their actual meaning, and an unfortunate metaphor that gets in the way--does more to confuse than illuminate. These guys are onto something big, but they're not great at presenting it.
And before you know it the word is redefined in Merriam Webster. Literally.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2005/11/the... http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002611.h...
As an outsider to the USA housing market (that seems to be very heavily regulated), could someone explain the significance of what is alleged here? More to the point, why are multi-listings of whole houses a bad thing?
(Note: not taking a position in this post, just describing both positions.) Many people unhappy with AirBnB want to portray AirBnB as primarily a means for large-scale commercial landlords to circumvent regulations on hotels, renting, or subletting; such a depiction makes it easier to argue for more regulation. A large number of people posting multiple "entire home" listings would lend support to that depiction. AirB…
Or for existing regulations to be enforced.
(There's no need to depict Airbnb skeptics as inherently "pro"-regulation, and instinctively wanting more of it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Note: not taking a position in this post, just describing both positions.) Many people unhappy with AirBnB want to portray AirBnB as primarily a means for large-scale commercial landlords to circumvent regulations on hotels, renting, or subletting; such a depiction makes it easier to argue for more regulation. A large number of people posting multiple "entire home" listings would lend support to that depiction. AirB…
Such a depiction makes it easier to argue for more regulation. Or for existing regulations to be enforced. (There's no need to depict Airbnb skeptics as inherently "pro"-regulation, and instinctively wanting more of it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a depiction makes it easier to argue for more regulation. Or for existing regulations to be enforced. (There's no need to depict Airbnb skeptics as inherently "pro"-regulation, and instinctively wanting more of it).
I'd intended that to be a broad statement: "more regulation" can mean either additional regulations or broader interpretation/enforcement of existing regulations. Either approach has the effect that anti-AirBnB folks want to see AirBnB more regulated, and AirBnB and pro-AirBnB folks want to see AirBnB less regulated.
Which, BTW, isn't an "anti"-AirBnB position at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just bad writing. It muddies their actual meaning, and an unfortunate metaphor that gets in the way--does more to confuse than illuminate. These guys are onto something big, but they're not great at presenting it.
Somewhat disagree. I instantly understood the metaphor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd intended that to be a broad statement: "more regulation" can mean either additional regulations or broader interpretation/enforcement of existing regulations. Either approach has the effect that anti-AirBnB folks want to see AirBnB more regulated, and AirBnB and pro-AirBnB folks want to see AirBnB less regulated.
Then there's people who just want existing regulations to be enforced in their current scope . Which, BTW, isn't an "anti"-AirBnB position at all.
Which is an increase in regulatory action from the status quo, aka "more regulation". There's no actual distinction between the two except spin.