91–100 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all about money and greed. Sad indeedy.
Airbnb is a business. And honestly their behavior is exactly what I would expect from them: dont admit any liability, offer words of consolement.
Their whole business model pretty much is built on the fact that things like this will happen. A lot.
AirBnB gives the illusion that you can just rent out your apartment without any precautions. I've stayed in a few dedicated holiday apartments and almost without fail: 1) They are furnished with the basics and that's it. No valuables and nothing that can not be easily replaced. 2) The owner or an employed managing agent interacted with us (either at the apartment or when we fetched the keys) when we arrived and left.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually that was apparently not sanctioned, rather the work of some contractors acting off their own back.[1] [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2815183
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
The founders hired the contractors. I don't think it's fair to call AirBnB spammers, and it's unreasonable to assume malice, but questions around oversight and transparency are reasonable ones to ask.
UPDATE: Deleted. Sheesh. I know it was a meta-point, but legitimate - downvoting for trying to actually provide balance? I think it's worth calling that out.
Wow. I love AirBnB, and I hate to say it, but that was a completely boneheaded move. There is absolutely no doubt that EJ is very public on this issue. If it's true that AirBnB tried to cover up the problem, then why? Did the founders think that EJ wouldn't turn around and say that they're asking her to remove the post? Handling this situation should be a top priority for AirBnB. There's the potential that the mainst…
> There's the potential that the mainstream media could have a field day with this. It's on the front page of the Financial Times today (Friday 29 July) in London. The article is fairly short, is based on the original blog post and the reaction to that, and it also talks about AirBnB's finances (as is appropriate for that newspaper). It's below the fold - the headline is about US government debt. But still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Airbnb is a business. And honestly their behavior is exactly what I would expect from them: dont admit any liability, offer words of consolement.
This isn't an isolated incident though. Their whole business model pretty much is built on the fact that things like this will happen. A lot.
If they truly expected these types of incidents to happen a lot, they would require more information from people (to be able to trace and hold visitors accountable) and have some sort of legalese to ensure that they would never be held liable.
I wonder how CouchSurfing managed such issues. I am sure it must have happened with CouchSurfing too. I know that they have ratings for members and past history. I guess you can get an impression of the trustworthiness. But then this sort of thing can happen too.
Worth noting that, despite recent large valuations and funding rounds, the founders of Airbnb are still driving their baby and have a massive emotional attachment to it. (As do all business owners.) This is their first significant black eye (the Craigslist stuff was far more limited in its audience reach), and has the potential to derail a company that's only 2 years old. Of course they're going to be responding emot…
I donwvoted you. I don't see how what you write is relevant. Everybody is emotionally attached to their startups, including me, so?
down-voting is a community moderation tool, to be used on comments that are off-topic, trolling, spam, etc.
The article in question is about AirBnB's repsonse to the situation (or rather, about EJ's comments about their response to the situation). The comment you down voted is making a point about a possible reason they may be acting that way.
It's a direct and thoughtful response to the topic at hand, it's ipso facto "relevent" in the sense that matters re: down-voting.
The fact that you disagree with it, or think it is flawed is not a valid reason for down-voting; instead you would reply refuting their point. You seem to think that their comment is not "relevent" re: how one considers their actions...and that may be true...but that is not a valid reason to downvote and not the sort of relevance that matters re that.
I only bring this up because many people seem to be confused about down-voting, or abuse the system and I think it's helpful to have a dialog on it occasionally.