Airbnb purged 1,000 "entire home" listings days before preparing data snapshot

Post by conceit » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 12:03 AM UTC

brbrodude wrote: post #29

sdoering wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Let the strongest do as they please - very democratic, indeed. Just because you could tax them and the city might profit doesn't automatically invalidate the reasoning behind the current rules banning practices like this in the first place. Maybe the reasoning is flawed. OK - then prove it, lobby for a change, but not just do as you wish and ignore the current laws because they are in the way of your busines…

I'm at a point where I've given up arguing, and maybe hoping, too. If anything history proves that the powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Now as more and more democracy is eaten by monetary power I feel only what's left to do is to wait for the big shock.. It's sad to think that even when people dedicate their time pro-bono to building tools and information medium like this, at most what it…

Post by Dylan16807 » Sun, Feb 14, 2016, 5:19 AM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #62

Dylan16807 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>existing regulations to be enforced in their current scope Which is an increase in regulatory action from the status quo, aka "more regulation". There's no actual distinction between the two except spin.

Which is an increase in regulatory action from the status quo, aka "more regulation" No -- "more regulation" means either added statutes or a broadened interpretation of existing statutes. To claim that having existing statutes to continue to be enforced -- i.e. to maintain the status quo -- when there's an uptake in violations against those statutes means that one is somehow advocating for "more regulation" is just.…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 8:29 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #63

kafkaesq wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is an increase in regulatory action from the status quo, aka "more regulation" No -- "more regulation" means either added statutes or a broadened interpretation of existing statutes. To claim that having existing statutes to continue to be enforced -- i.e. to maintain the status quo -- when there's an uptake in violations against those statutes means that one is somehow advocating for "more regulation" is just.…

The status quo is largely-absent enforcement. It would be weird to use the term "more" if it was fully enforced right now, but it's not.

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #66

Dylan16807 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The status quo is largely-absent enforcement. It would be weird to use the term "more" if it was fully enforced right now, but it's not.

The status quo is largely-absent enforcement. Aside from the fact that you have no data or sources to support this contention (it's just hunch you have), your logic is incredibly convoluted here.

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 10:25 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #68

Dylan16807 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just about every article talks about how hosts are violating the law on a massive scale. Making them stop is "more regulation", it's pretty simple logic. It doesn't matter which branch of government is doing it.

Making them stop is "more regulation", it's pretty simple logic. But broken logic. And pretty much a repeat of where were at 6-8 levels up from here.