Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts • Hacker News Board

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#221

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #54

mcshicks wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in housing. The law seems perfectly clear to me. As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful-- (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of…

I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them. It's a typical problem of the "sharing" economy. I'm not sure the courts will agree with them, but their strategy has been similar to Uber's in that they come in, break the law (or at the very least operate in a legal grey area), then get so big that traditi…

I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them.

There's a world of difference between a single family letting their guest room, the runner of a "Hacker Hostel" with 12 bunks, and someone who rents 4 different properties on AirBnB but lives in another house. The laws should be formulated such that the rules for hotels also apply to the 3rd case. Such laws should definitely not apply to the 1st case. A "Hacker Hostel" is also something of an interest group, so I'm not sure what applies there.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#222

Post by bmm6o » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

Unklejoe wrote: post #206

eropple wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have personal preferences about whom you conduct business with , you shouldn't be allowed to conduct business with anyone. This isn't about your home; this is about your use of your home as a capital asset. You can allow into your home anyone you choose to and bar anyone you choose to. But as a society we have agreed that we--through our government--most certainly have a stake in making sure that you treat oth…

[If you have personal preferences about whom you conduct business with, you shouldn't be allowed to conduct business with anyone.] Why? If someone chooses to discriminate, why not let them suffer the consequences of lost potential revenue naturally? It gives people who don't discriminate a chance to step in and gain market share. It reminds me of the story of the bakery who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay coup…

> It gives people who don't discriminate a chance to step in and gain market share.

The next step is that the discriminating companies are out-competed and go out of business, leaving only non-discriminating companies. Conclusion: that's why there are no discriminating companies left!

This is a nice thought, but it barely works in theory and I've never seen it work in practice. That the consequent isn't observed regularly should tell you something about the assumptions we started with.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#223

Post by bitL » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #198

bitL wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that nobody cares if a white male experiences any sort of problems with anyone, but the moment a black person or a woman says something, everybody rushes in. Now we see white males in blue collar jobs are committing suicide in huge numbers and many checked out of society completely (unemployment + gaming, porn) as they don't see any point to be involved as they are invisible to women in their 20s and get…

> Does this really seem fine to you? You're attributing to me emotions I did not express. Obviously, because I didn't offer an opinion on anything in my question. >There are now many women-only places/clubs but the same is denied to men in the US. This is demonstrably false, and can be disproved with Google in seconds. But I'll surmise you aren't all that concerned with the existence of women's social clubs as a coun…

I am not an American, so it's only tangentially related to my life (in a way that my part of the world is going to experience it 10 years later), or that I have to be more careful not to accidentally trigger anyone on my next Hawaiian vacation (like last time I visited Old Lahaina Luau and some black woman from NYC wanted to kick me out of the place I paid for because she wanted to sit there - is being a "black woman" the secret superpower to do crazy irresponsible things with no penalty nowadays?).

Anyway, possible interesting stats for your further research:

- average/median earning of single women in their 20s comparing to the same group of men in officially recognized fields (no sugar daddy incomes etc.)

- ratio of female/male university graduates

- number of male-only clubs forced to close or allow female participation comparing to the number of female-only clubs

Frankly, I couldn't care less about men-/women-only clubs, I just don't understand why former are scorned upon and latter are celebrated. I come from a part of Europe that was pretty equal for a long time so seeing this happening seems extreme to me.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#224

Post by hackuser » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #27

dilap wrote: post #6

I don't know if this is really a tractable problem. At the end of the day, either airbnb lets hosts decide who stays or doesn't. If they don't let hosts decide, they'll likely lose a ton of hosts, since having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. If they do, then they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever.

That was my thought here as well. It's one thing to have very public businesses with anti-discrimination rules, but something like Air BnB where people have to decide in most cases who they are going to let into their homes is a much more complicated problem. We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite o…

> prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US.

I'd stay away from these issues on HN unless we really have something valuable and new to add. I'll just say that there's another side to this and many strongly disagree with this notion. To sum it up and just put both sides out there (hopefully not starting a debate), people facing widespread discrimination, unable to get jobs, housing, health care, and even dinner and hotel rooms are not free, but oppressed. Also, it's long been part of US history, it's not a new trend. Anti-discrimination laws are one example.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#225

Post by Unklejoe » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #213

Unklejoe wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What determines if something is a protected class?

Being denoted as such in federal law. The original Civil Rights Act, in 1964, specified race, color, sex, religion, and national origin; since then a few classes (pregnancy/marital status, age, citizenship, etc.) have been added over time.

I see. I honestly didn't know much about the specifics of protected classes before today.

So, currently, political affiliation is not a protected class, but it is considered a gray area by many.

Many may feel that political affiliation should be considered a protected class, however, if it becomes one, would that mean that Nazism is now protected?

Or coming at it from the other angle, as it stands, a religious extremist who believes that all members of a particular race/religion/orientation/etc should be put to death is currently protected. Why is that protected but Nazism not? Or does the protection become void as soon as you use it negatively towards another protected class? I'm genuinely asking.

Even though Nazism isn’t technically a religion, it seems very similar to religious extremism in many ways.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#226

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #165

brightball wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I meant by that was individual liberty and the ability to make your own choices and decisions. Government meddling in that in this case is forcing people to do something they are uncomfortable with simply because they paid money while simultaneously running the risk of legal action if at any point you want to abort the transaction. The most basic example is akin to forcing somebody to sign a contract without kno…

We've tried allowing this kind of thing, and what we got was redlining, "No colored allowed" and "Dogs and Irish keep off the grass." If complying with anti-discrimination law is a problem for you, you should generally not be in this line of business.

Redlining is an explicit government policy, started by the HOLC (a government sponsored corporation created by FDR as part of the New Deal).

Here's one of their maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Own...

Separating whites from colored was also explicit government policy. It was called Jim Crow. We never tried "this kind of thing".

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa...

The law was actually far more intrusive back then than it is today. For example, you might be shocked to discover that Jim Crow laws actually mandated discrimination in sexual relationships!

The closest we've come to trying this kind of thing is the present day, where at least sexual relationships have been deregulated. (This one is a biggie for me, I discriminate pretty strongly against white women and think the government should not restrict my freedom in that way.)

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#227

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

RodericDay wrote: post #58

exelius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them. It's a typical problem of the "sharing" economy. I'm not sure the courts will agree with them, but their strategy has been similar to Uber's in that they come in, break the law (or at the very least operate in a legal grey area), then get so big that traditi…

I could agree with this. But, since the government will have to do all this inspection, I guess you agree that they will have to levy a tax on AirBnB to pay for it?

Why wouldn't the government just require AirBnB to provide transaction data in response to a report of discrimination?

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#228

Post by hackuser » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

dilap wrote: post #6

I don't know if this is really a tractable problem. At the end of the day, either airbnb lets hosts decide who stays or doesn't. If they don't let hosts decide, they'll likely lose a ton of hosts, since having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. If they do, then they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever.

> I don't know if this is really a tractable problem.

You don't need a perfect solution in order to do something. They can improve the situation. And also it's important that they make clear it's unacceptable and take action: It's like bullying; people passively watching send the message that the behavior is socially permitted. People are hard wired to follow social norms.

> they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever.

Discrimination isn't forever. Protestants and Catholics, not to mention Irish and Italians, and many others used to riot against each other in the U.S. When John F Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected President it was actually a big deal. Now nobody even notices when a Mormon runs. Look at discrimination against women, Jews, LGBTQ, and many others. It takes too long, but the history is very optimistic.

I even hear that most American voters voted for a black man - twice - only a generation after he wouldn't have been allowed to even sleep in a hotel in much of the country. (Could he get an Airbnb room now, if he weren't recognized? I sure don't want to go back to those days.)

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#229

Post by Chronic9q » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #224

brightball wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my thought here as well. It's one thing to have very public businesses with anti-discrimination rules, but something like Air BnB where people have to decide in most cases who they are going to let into their homes is a much more complicated problem. We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite o…

> prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. I'd stay away from these issues on HN unless we really have something valuable and new to add. I'll just say that there's another side to this and many strongly disagree with this notion. To sum it up and just put both sides out there (hopefully not starting a debate), people facing widespread dis…

It's my home and I do what I want. If you're black and I don't like you, I have every right not to let you into my house, no matter your history. You cannot debate this statement.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#230

Post by weberc2 » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:20 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #121

simonsarris wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of one way AirBNB could attempt to persuade hosts: publish data showing that there is no correlation between any of [race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age] and the likelihood of a guest being a poor guest (ending in an insurance claim, or maybe just a very bad review). If the data shows that there is no correlation, they can prove hosts have no reason t…

I'm sure that if AirBnB lays out an impartial, data driven argument, racists will realize the error of their ways. ... Right. Also, note that health insurer discrimination is the exception, rather then the norm (And it surprises me that it is even legal).

I don't think the point is to convert racists as much as it is to prove to non-racists that the general actuarial tables don't apply specifically to AirBnB's renters.