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

#391

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

spaceflunky wrote: post #114

st3v3r wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hotels don't get any of that. Why should you?

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.

"Because I'm renting out my personal residence."

That's your choice. No one made you.

"Why should we lump hotels and my apt into the same bucket? They are different types of businesses"

They really aren't. They provide the same service.

"I think it's unreasonable to say that all home-sharers must act like hotels."

I don't. Especially with regards to anti-discrimination laws.

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

#392

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

spaceflunky wrote: post #190

chimeracoder wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Screening guests =/= racism I, personally, am not arguing that discrimination isn't wrong (though some other threads have clarified the actual legality). I'm just saying that the methods Airbnb has chosen to prevent said discrimination also make it impossible for me to host and those methods are shaky at best.

Airbnb has not done anything to make it impossible for you to host.

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

#393

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #388

sokoloff wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lock an "owner's closet" and have intention to return to the building as your permanent residence, and I believe you meet all needed aspects of 2 to have it apply. Certainly if I rented part of a duplex where I lived in the other half, #2 applies. #2 continues to apply even while I'm at work, if I go out to dinner, or go on vacation.

Fortunately we have these things called "courts" that are able to apply reason and nuance in combination with logic, with human beings called 'judges' that are able to comprehend a difference between someone who went out to dinner and someone who locked a broom closet to try and falsely claim residence at a property. You're not the first person who has tried to falsely claim residence at a property, it's a very commo…

The point is, if I AirBnB out my place while I go traveling in Europe for 6 weeks, it's perfectly clear that I meet the exemption.

If I buy another structure and AirBnB out that place, it's equally clear that I don't.

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

#394

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

MarkMc wrote: post #360

stcredzero wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is that it's much easier to determine someone's race than socioeconomic status, then use it as a proxy for risk. 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 discri…

socioeconomic status is defacto racial discrimination because of the correlation between status and race.

If you're "playing the odds" by using race as a proxy for socioeconomic status, then this is wrong. It's also a pretty poor proxy, in my experience. What about our judgements about people's judgements? (Meta-judgements.) If you're equating making a factual determination about socioeconomic status with racial discrimination, then you are using the same sort of statistical proxy you're arguing against!

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.

Really, socioeconomic status is a proxy for behavior and ability to pay. Because of its rating system, AirBnB can function as a meritocracy. The fact that it has an effective rating system is a competitive advantage. Provided they are not absolutely locked out, it seems feasible for a poor person to earn a good rating in such a meritocratic system.

If AirBnB wants to further social justice, then it should make the meritocracy of the ratings fairer, instead of denying its utility to hosts. The former increases justice. The latter is using market power to force hosts into behaving how you want. You don't win hearts and minds by forcing people to do things. You win them by facilitating their voluntary transactions with all different kinds of people. (I've seen this first hand. I saw one of my classmates go from being a homophobe to being the best friend of a gay activist, by bonding over soap operas.)

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

#395

Post by paulmd » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 5:53 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #393

paulmd wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately we have these things called "courts" that are able to apply reason and nuance in combination with logic, with human beings called 'judges' that are able to comprehend a difference between someone who went out to dinner and someone who locked a broom closet to try and falsely claim residence at a property. You're not the first person who has tried to falsely claim residence at a property, it's a very commo…

The point is, if I AirBnB out my place while I go traveling in Europe for 6 weeks, it's perfectly clear that I meet the exemption. If I buy another structure and AirBnB out that place, it's equally clear that I don't.

Yup, temporary absences like vacations are perfectly allowable. You just can't say that you reside on a property because you locked up a broom closet, even though you never live there.

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

#396

Post by gg5ever » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #324

simonsarris wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you suggest that "men" and "humans" as classes should be discriminated against as a result? Yes, if you can sell a night's stay for the same price to a houseplant as you can to a human, it would seem wisest to board the houseplant at every opportunity. > What if, statistically, there were some weird factor... I would like an AI to make all my booking picks for me, but not one that aims to maximize diversity o…

You choose to use the obvious case, but it would be just as true for the other one: Yes, if you can sell a night's stay for the same price to a woman as you can to a man, it would seem wisest to board the woman at every opportunity.

Yes - it's legal to discriminate by sex. If you go out looking for apartments in a major city, you will see many "women-only" options, probably for some of the reasons you listed. However, I don't think the arguments for sexual prejudice apply to racial prejudice.

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

#397

Post by hackaflocka » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #272

hackaflocka wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of forcing owners to let people who are not compatible, stay with them, is ridiculous. I'm Indian and smell of curry (probably... at least a few times a month). If someone hates the smell of curry, they should be allowed to blanket disallow Indians from staying.

I'm West Indian and I love curry. And I also don't smell like it. What the hell do you do, bathe in it?

You do smell like it. You just don't know it.

Self knowledge is rare. I have it, you don't.

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

#398

Post by serge2k » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 1:09 AM UTC

dajohnson89 wrote: post #280

serge2k wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine. Until you have a little business in that home and are now refusing paying customers.

Nope, still fine even then. You do realize that if I rent out a room in my home (say, for a year's lease), I can discriminate on any basis I so choose?

I don't give a shit. You're a piece of human garbage if you discriminate based on skin colour, and you shouldn't be allowed to do it while having your own little hotel in your house.

Getting a roommate is different. You can still be a piece of garbage and discriminate, but that's your business.

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

#399

Post by aminok » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #382

aminok wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is the basis of a stable social order, and one is not. Once you abandon the principle of private property and self-ownership, then human rights just become a popularity contest, about which values and attitudes are acceptable (not polygamy, but yes homosexuality! Not white racial awareness, but yes other groups' ethnic/racial awareness!). It's not a viable principle to base a justice system on. It will inevitably…

The evidence for your system isn't very good. Without government protections from discrimination, large portions of the population were oppressed, lynched, falsely imprisoned, denied jobs, education, rights, healthcare (and much more), and consigned to poverty. An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?

You're conflating violations of human rights, like lynching, with private discrimination, which violates no rights.

You do not have a right to a product or service (like healthcare), or a job, that someone else provides. You're only entitled to your life, liberty and property. As soon as you assume a right to things others produce, you support the violation of their life, liberty and/or property.

>An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?

Private discrimination is not oppression. Using government violence to prevent someone from discriminating is oppression.

Private discrimination is something we all engage in, every day. What you're arguing for is prohibiting certain types of discrimination, in certain areas of private life. For instance, prohibiting racial discrimination but not ideological discrimination, and in one's business interactions, and not sexual interactions.

The whole concept of prohibiting private discrimination is wrong, as it presumes we do not have a total right to determine who we associate and do business with.

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

#400

Post by eropple » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

im4w1l wrote: post #364

tptacek wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we tried that and it didn't work. It wasn't a single decision that resulted in redlining that forced all the black people in cities to under-served slums. It was an aggregation of millions of personal decisions, many of them by otherwise reasonable people who were simply responding to the very powerful human cognitive bias of loss aversion. So, as a society, we decided to do what can to foreclose on that path…

Are you saying that if black people live in one society and white people live in one society, then the black one will necessarily be hundreds times worse than the white one? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

That's not at all what he's saying. He's saying that, when you segment off the institutionally subjugated part of your population--the part of the population who has historically been denied economic opportunities, educational opportunities, and legal rights--you are going to have two populations that have very different growth curves.

And, historically and into the present, there are cultural incentives (racist-ass racism) and economic incentives (risk aversion) to make that happen.