351–360 of 403 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So slavery is okay as long as the government determines it is. Great moral framework you have there. It's morally wrong to use threats of government violence to dictate how an individual uses their private property.
You know those "threats of government violence" are the only thing stopping the practice of slavery?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok then their model succeeds mainly on the basis that it's freeloading by being an exception to rules that apply to hotels. They're cheaper because they're not doing pretty much any of the things hotels are required to do, not just limited to taxes, but including the various health inspection regimes that states require for places of public accommodation including hotels. So yeah, you don't have to clean as well as a…
I agree with you -- Uber succeeded for many of the same reasons. They found a weak, fragmented, and hyper localized regulatory environment (very similar to that of hotels) that they could overwhelm with global scale after building up in a few "friendly" markets. I suspect Google was trying to do the same with Google Fiber, but found the opposition (in the form of AT&T / Verizon / Comcast / TWC / Charter / Cox) was to…
I'm confused by the responses in here so far. How does discriminating based on race, gender, age, etc guarantee that your property will not be damaged? If you want the access and business that using AirBnb's platform provides then you need to adhere to their rules. Pretty simple. If that's a problem use craigslist or some other service so you can use whatever prejudices you have to screen guests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know those "threats of government violence" are the only thing stopping the practice of slavery?
I'm okay with threats of government violence against would-be violators of human rights, like slavers and murderers. I'm not okay with using such threats to deter private discrimination in who people interact and do business with. Violence is only an acceptable response in cases when a person initiates a violation of another's person or property.
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…
Enough with this rubbish - your comment is that of the totalitarian.
Homes are not businesses, and people have a right to decide who they let it - and not.
It's not a simplistic decision, and there are probably many factors. Personally - if someone looked like a scruffy bum, I don't think I'd want them renting my AirBnB if I had a place. Frankly, I don't care if it's 'discriminatory'.
More importantly - shutting down the discussion with political y loaded ideology is just wrong. These are nuanced issues, you don't get to win by saying the word 'racist'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with how the question is framed, around whether someone can do these things: People can do all sorts of bad things; they can mentally abuse their children, they can gamble away all their family's assets, cheat their co-workers and customers, they can hate and do many other things to ruin their lives, their family's, their neighbor's, their country's and the world's. People have the right to turn the U.S. i…
I'll put a sharper point on it: People must be governed.[1] People have an enormous capacity to be violent, racist, sexist, small minded, paranoid, greedy, and dishonest, and the whole point of government is to collectively overcome these failings. Obviously government cannot stop discrimination just as it cannot stop murder, theft, etc. But it can dramatically reduce it by imposing the proper social norms. [1] https…
Then maybe the government should tell you who you can have sex with an who not to?
It thought you people wanted the government out of your bedroom?
Telling people who people can have in their homes and not is fascist. These are not commercial businesses.
If you want to make a law stating that any flat rented out on an going basis constitutes a 'business' - and subject to regular rules - that's fine. But if they are homes - no way.
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'd be interested in what % of rooms booked on AirBnB are actually people staying at some person's personal home with them and what % is rental properties, real bed and breakfasts, etc. I don't have any data but my impression is that it's mostly commercial renting by volume/$.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I can and I will. Morally (if not legally), that changes the minute you are offering up a bed in your home in exchange for money.
No.
I'd argue it changes when you have a flat that is rented out on a near full time basis to others, i.e. 'a business'.
As an host, I'll never discriminate on the basis of religion, sex orientation, color of skin, national origin or gender identity. When it comes to disability, I might refuse someone whose disability would cause risk in using the apartment and might have an accident because the apartment is not safe for someone who's disabled (the building is 300 years old, there's no elevator, the stair in the duplex apartment doesn'…
This is definitely discrimination, even though I don't object to it.
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…
Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US The majority of recent uses of the term "white supremacist" make me cringe. It's mostly propaganda: A deliberate emotional attack often based on a false equivalence. In any case, the impression I have as a frequent AirBnB user is that most AirBnB owners aren't interested in renting on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national or…
And even if we remove all racial characteristics from the application, judging by socioeconomic status is defacto racial discrimination because of the correlation between status and race.
And even if there were no correlation between socioeconomic status and race, it still seems wrong to discriminate against a poor person even if, on average, poor people cause more problems for the landlord.