Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Users You Don’t Want

themacro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 188 posts

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#111

Post by makomk »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #101
crdoconnor wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it's not profitable then why should Airbnb be the one to subsidize it? Because they're massive rent extractors. Rent extractors should subsidize most things.

AirBnB is a rent extractor? That's a tendentious claim; the reason all the 'sharing economy' stuff works is that it's improving capital utilization and damaging cartels. I'd expect that real rent extractors are hotel owners in big cities with limited hotel zoning, who lobby for anti-AirBnB regulation to keep competition low and prices high. Or the politician/business alliances who build the local convention center by…

The reason all that "sharing economy" stuff works is that you can afford to have worse capital utilization if you ignore existing regulations. For example, there's a big difference between what people can afford to pay for hotel stays and what they can afford to pay to live somewhere which means that dedicated AirBNB apartments can stay empty a large chunk of the time if you ignore zoning regulations intended to block this. Similarly, Uber cars can operate at much lower hours and mileage because there aren't the same restrictions on the number cluttering the streets or the same vetting of new staff.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#112

Post by geofft »

dbsmith83 wrote: post #42
GuiA wrote: post #20

> Now, what happens if someone with an infant or developmentally challenged teenager signs up? Their needs present an entirely new set of problems, problems that could be solved by a startup but not necessarily by ours. Remember you don’t have to pivot your business because a customer needs something that you don’t offer. If you open a restaurant, you bet that there are certain building codes you'll have to follow in…

I agree with your concerns as a whole, but maybe not your analysis of the accommodation. If the startup is merely a platform for connecting babysitters and parents, babysitters could choose whom they want to babysit. A babysitter who was not qualified to deal with a developmentally challenged kid or infant should not have to, and probably shouldn't.

Hmmm. That idea is definitely appealing, but the "platform" argument has some serious negative side effects that I think the government should legitimately be able to regulate. What if babysitters of one race didn't want to sit babies of another race? Should they be forced to?

This isn't a hypothetical example—Airbnb has this exact problem.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#113

Post by makomk »

mapgrep wrote: post #29

I feel like this point could have been made without referring to infants and developmentally disabled teenagers as "hijacker users." I hate to moralize, but this essay helped me realize that there is, in fact, a baseline level of humanity we hold one another to in this community. And it is pretty inhumane to reduce the weakest members of society to mere obstacles to your business success. Choose another example and y…

Oh, I think they're making their point quite effectively, given that this is how "disruptive" companies like Uber and AirBNB actually operate. You're right that perhaps a more euphemistic example might've been better PR though.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#114

Post by geofft »

blfr wrote: post #64
GuiA wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if it's not profitable to do that on its own? The "free market takes care of everything" argument is an idealistic position, not something based in reality.

If it's not profitable then why should Airbnb be the one to subsidize it? Why not the government? Or some charity? Or you? We don't expect anyone who meets a homeless person to offer them a place on their couch. That would be unfair. And an additional incentive to avoid homeless people. We have (well, not everywhere but at least we aim for) a systemic solution. There are homeless shelters for example, sometimes run a…

Why would that argument not apply to "It's 1960, and I don't want to seat black customers at my fancy restaurant because it's statistically likely to be less profitable than seating white customers"?

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#115

Post by rhizome »

riboflava wrote: post #75
IanCal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the US but in the UK what you're suggesting would I think be illegal. You shouldn't make things accessible just when you're a large company, that's a really disappointing approach.

This is just another reason why the US has a healthier startup culture. There are a lot of things that take effort to do that US companies can get away with not doing until forced to by law or the market, or when the opportunity costs diminish that they do it out of the goodness of the individuals' involved hearts.

If you ever have children I imagine your stance that "not until I'm forced to" is a healthy attitude will change.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#116

Post by toomanybeersies »

gautamdivgi wrote: post #33
GuiA wrote: post #20

> Now, what happens if someone with an infant or developmentally challenged teenager signs up? Their needs present an entirely new set of problems, problems that could be solved by a startup but not necessarily by ours. Remember you don’t have to pivot your business because a customer needs something that you don’t offer. If you open a restaurant, you bet that there are certain building codes you'll have to follow in…

This is a good point. Same with Uber. Most Cab companies are required to provide access to wheelchair bound and disabled members of society at no extra charge. Not sure if Uber has the same requirement - and if and when it starts moving cab's out of business it will definitely prove to be a problem.

Uber in New Zealand offers uberASSIST: https://newsroom.uber.com/new-zealand/uberassistnz/

Not sure if that's out of the kindness of their hearts, or because they've been made to do it by the govt.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#117

Post by rhizome »

nostrademons wrote: post #78
DanBC wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accessibility benefits everyone. Everyone wants easier to read, easier to understand, websites. How does a harder to use, harder to understand website help a business?

That's not really the comparison for a startup, though. It's "Would you rather have an easy-to-use, easy-to-understand website that does nothing useful, or an easy-to-use, easy-to-understand website that's full of security holes, or a hard-to-use, hard-to-understand website that basically does what it's supposed to?" It's pointless to make a website that nobody wants to use highly usable. There's an opportunity cost…

"Would you rather have an easy-to-use, easy-to-understand website that does nothing useful, or an easy-to-use, easy-to-understand website that's full of security holes, or a hard-to-use, hard-to-understand website that basically does what it's supposed to?"

Why are these the only three options?

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#118

Post by SolaceQuantum »

riboflava wrote: post #69
falcolas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the need is great, but there isn't a lot of extra money to be made? Should the minority with disabilities be forced to pay extra to convince someone to provide them with otherwise identical functionality? Many accommodations, if not federally mandated, simply wouldn't happen. For example, handicapped parking spots. People who use those spots are technically capable of using other parking locations as well, an…

Yes to your second question. Maybe the government can offer a tax return bonus to cover it. And pump more money into fully general cures for all disabilities. I'm not against making disabled peoples' lives better, but focusing entirely on the supplier side is a mistake.

> And pump more money into fully general cures for all disabilities

I find this a disingenuous interpretation of how certain disabilities work and how "curable" they may be. Certain degenerative conditions are hardly understood, or the treatment requires time and reasonable accommodations from society such as the need for ramps and wheelchair accessibility. I do not know a way for non-supply-side costs to factor in "being able to use a wheelchair and still function in society".

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#119

Post by rhizome »

pc86 wrote: post #19
the_watcher wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is that you open yourself up to lawsuits under the ADA.

To be clear there has only been a single case where a website was found to be financially liable for lack of accessibility (in CA). Jurisdiction certainly covers most startups, but it's a single state. For the other ~88% of Americans there is no relevant case law on the subject. If you run a website in North Carolina with $15k MRR accessibility is likely a waste of your time unless you're in a niche that is in some w…

A website with $15K MRR probably has fewer than 15 employees, exempting them from ADA compliance.

However, it remains the right thing to do, and much easier if implemented from the beginning.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#120

Post by derefr »

ryandrake wrote: post #48
pc86 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 49.9% of executives agree with that and 90%+ of product people/developers agree with that too. The problem is that it's rarely X and Y. It's almost always justifiable, though. Imagine X=1 and Y=100. If you sell 1 and a customer asks for 100 it's easy to say no. If they ask for 50 or 25 it's still easy. The problem is when they ask for 2. Or 1.5, and are willing to pay big bucks to get it. It's hard to know wh…

Oh, yes, it's a difficult call. The customer might even start in with this (stop me if you've heard THIS one before): "Hey, we'll pay all your NRE for you and you get to sell it to everyone else including our competitors as part of your product!!" Do this, and your product people (if you have any) will all quit, and your engineering talent will start thinking "If we're just another custom engineering consulting compa…

Tangent: who are the "big consulting firms [who pay] actual money"? SAP? IBM? Salesforce?
Post reply on HN