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

#241

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:39 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #75

jasode wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception. I don't think it would be. The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition to help the law pin down properties that are "commercial". In other words, if you're paying the high price of contracting a broker, you're 99.99% likely not to be renting out a perso…

>homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker. Except that AirBnB: - collects money and acts as a financial intermediary - provides some measure of insurance to both sides of the transaction - provides some measure of support before/during/after a stay - more? Basically, it's nothing like a newspaper classified.

That's more AirBnb's issue than the homeowner. The whole business is illegal.

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

#242

Post by fiatjaf » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:39 PM UTC

With increasing risks that come with the platform growth, this is a move against host safety. We need more discrimination (I mean potential guests should be made to supply more information to give hosts better ways to discriminate), not less.

Robbery, rapes and kills are waiting in the corner.

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

#243

Post by orthoganol » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #168

orthoganol wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a host who was nice to me when I met him and then wasn't as nice 5 minutes later once my wife arrived I don't doubt the presence of racism in our society, but this seems like an overly subjective and crude way to label someone a racist. Off the top of my head they could be threatened by the other's attractiveness (surprisingly common), they find the person awkward to speak with or annoying/ out of touch, they are s…

It's fine to analyze potential racism experienced by oneself in this fashion, but it really is out of bounds to analyze potential racism experienced by other people in this way. Perhaps that isn't fair to those of us who rarely experience potential racism, but so what?

The person I was responding to was not the experiencer of the racism, as you meant it. Yes this is a good guideline in general, but there are also times when probing further is necessary for an actual meaningful discussion.

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

#244

Post by hackuser » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #172

kevinpet wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would probably be pretty unsuccessful. Who's going to use and recommend WhiteBnB to their friends? Well, yeah, neo-nazis. But that's a pretty niche market and AirBnB only works if they are big enough to make the two sided market work.

It's not about WhiteBnB. It's about WhomeverIWantBnB. I am white, European, affluent, from a popular country and was rejected many times by AirBnB hosts (most of them blacks or women), so what? I looked elsewhere. It's really their right to provide accommodation to whomever they wish, it's their property. If AirBnB doesn't want them, they'd go elsewhere and AirBnB will go the way GitHub is going. Most hosts are featu…

This comment doesn't provide a substantive basis to any of its claims, and unfortunately, whether the author means it that way or not, it reads like a lot of racial propaganda. Spreading that kind of idea has historically led to very bad results, with many people getting hurt, killed, and oppressed. I hope we can be very careful and apply scrutiny to what we write on the issue; words have serious impact.

Nobody should be disadvantaged; it doesn't matter what the color of your skin is. If you look around society, such as SV companies, Congress, on TV, in college, on Wall Street, or any other measure, you'll see a lot of white guys doing very well; it's been that way for hundreds of years. No research I know of shows white men having trouble getting Airbnb rooms, I've never seen it mentioned, and I'd be pretty surprised. Factually, it's obvious, very well-established, and there is a long history regarding what groups are disadvantaged. We should do something about it.

Finally, I hope that in a free society I can disagree with your comment without being preemptively attacked and my behavior criticized.

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

#245

Post by notfromhere » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #170

spaceflunky wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I'm renting out my personal residence. Why should we lump hotels and my apt into the same bucket? They are different types of businesses. I think it's unreasonable to say that all home-sharers must act like hotels.

> I think it's unreasonable to say that all home-sharers must act like hotels. First, Airbnb hosts are not "sharing" their homes. They're renting them out for financial profits. Second, the name is literally Air bnb , as in "Bed and Breakfast". Most B&Bs don't get anything close to that amount of information, and it's illegal for them to discriminate on the basis of protected classes, just like hotels.

Airbnb skirts regulations by pretending its not a hotel service; you can't have it both ways.

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

#246

Post by guelo » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #234

eropple wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If AirBnB doesn't want them, they'd go elsewhere and AirBnB will go the way GitHub is going. So, exactly where it is now? I know it's super popular in regressive circles to think that GitHub is somehow failing because fffffemninisms , but it's also untrue. > I really think US is now getting to a completely different extreme - why should be whites and men so severely disadvantaged? We're not. Claims to the contrary…

Source: straight white male in one of the most liberal parts of the United States and doing just fine. It's mostly about socioeconomic status. The overarching problem is the conflation of things like race with socioeconomic status. Poor white males being conflated with affluent white males is basically a part of the same phenomenon as poor black males being conflated with affluent black males. The former results in p…

Sure but in general poor whites are still better off than poor blacks. It's really hard to make the case that white men are systematically disadvantaged in any real world scenarios besides maybe some internet or college social justice activist circles.

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

#247

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:46 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.

Note also that while "protected class" is often treated in discussion as if it was a consistent list across all of the law (at least, within, e.g., federal law), this is not the case: protected classes for particular anti-discrimination laws can be different, and may be different from the Constitutional-law set of suspect and quasi-suspect classes (a concept often conflated with that of "protected classes") that are relevant to equal protection analysis under the 14th Amendment (and, though the list of classes within those categories may be different, under similar state constitutional provisions.)

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

#248

Post by fiatjaf » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:46 PM UTC

ovis wrote: post #32

jasode wrote: post #12

>Airbnb said it would also accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval. Maybe I'm naive but it seems like that policy would be perceived by hosts as extremely hostile. Homeowners have both a financial and emotional vested interest in their homes so letting strangers book it without a cursory check isn't going to work. Having no checks would work for real es…

What if there was a reputation threshold for a traveller to make an instant booking? Of course it's still not immune to racism or sexism, but it seems that it would provide a decent buffer against it.

That would be great if you could come up with a good way of measuring "reputation".

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

#249

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

ebola1717 wrote: post #193

jessaustin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which amendment is that one? The Tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Of course this is a dead letter because of a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, but there it is. If the Constitution didn't literally give the federal government a power, it doesn't have that power.

Ok there George Wallace

Haha there's a charitable interpretation. Actually my second-favorite amendment is the Fourteenth, precisely because it knocks the states down a few pegs, and gives the federal government the power to enforce that. (In addition to, you know, extending citizenship to everyone...) I doubt old George would have agreed with that.

[EDIT:] to avoid confusion, the First is my favorite.

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

#250

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #231

Unklejoe wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extrem…

Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance. The comparison between Nazism and discrimination against black people is pretty creepy, though. The experience of black people on Airbnb is: "Here is an amazing looking listing. I'm psyched to see if it's available for my trip. Click. Oh! It is available! How excellent. I'll plan accordingly." Then, a few hours…

> Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance.

That's not being a protected class (which is a statutory issue), or even being a Con-law suspect or quasi-suspect class, that's simply application of the 1st Amendment (incorporated by the 14th). Its a whole different, unrelated area of protection.

> The experience of the neo-Nazi is roughly the same, except the first time it happens they take the swastika out of their profile picture and from then on everything works peachy for them.

Which pretty much also works for many victims of religious discrimination, but even so religion is (and political affiliation, Nazi or otherwise, is not) a protected class under fair housing law. So, insofar as its a difference between "Nazis" and "blacks", its a difference largely orthogonal to the issue of protected class status under fair housing laws.