Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 399 posts

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#351

Post by foxit »

Timothee wrote: post #313
Omnipresent wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not cool.

Well… I don't know. Sure, it's easy to think "look, YC changed the title because it gave a bad light to a YC company!" and that might be part of it. But the truth is that this story only got the spotlight here because it had AirBnB in the submission title, but the events it describes are not really specific to AirBnB. It could have happened through many other rental services. Also it's typically frowned upon changing…

Hi, I'm the submitter, and this was my first submission to Hacker News. Thanks for letting me know (both you and pg) about it being frowned upon to change the title - I'll know that for the future. As he states, it was changed for me. (The original I put in was "AirBnB: Crimes committed against a host".)

I do have to disagree on the likelihood that this particular scenario would've happened to the host through other rental agencies. For her explanation as to why, see paragraph 14 overall - or paragraph 4 under the heading "This was my home" - in her post. She addresses Craigslist; to add to that, I know that VRBO and HomeAway (the two major entire-unit vacation rental sites) accept payment for the host's listing only but absolutely everything else is left between the two parties, including verifications, contracts (if any), and payment method. The key relevant difference between those sites and Airbnb is that Airbnb blocks both host and guest from exchanging outside contact and identity information until a reservation is completed through their system. The reason for that is obvious, as Airbnb is a different business model, and needs to ensure that they receive their percentage for leads they provide. But one result of that policy is that taking independent security measures are impossible until both host and guest are already obligated and on the hook (hosts are penalized by appearing lower in the listings if they cancel a confirmed reservation from their end). The victim admits her naivete in thinking that because Airbnb demands to handle several aspects of the booking, that there are other levels of safety and verification implicit that in fact do not exist.

So yes, hosts can get ripped off using other listing services as well. But it is also made readily apparent that one should protect themselves on those sites, and users aren't actively blocked from gathering information to do so.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#352

Post by mscarborough »

kragen wrote: post #323
dlss wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope this happens soon. The risk/reward trade-offs don't seem to be understood by most AirBnB landlords (99.99% chance of earning $100, 0.01% chance of losing $50k+). Even though this is strongly positive expected value, for a family that can't afford to lose $50k this is a game of russian roulette. My heart goes out to the author of this; I hope the person who did this to her is put in jail, and the system (AirBnB…

I think you are dramatically overstating the risk at 0.01%. Suppose past performance predicts future results. AirBnB has had, what, 10 million rental deals? And this has only happened, as far as we can tell, once. That's not an 0.01% risk. It's more like 0.000001%. Overstating the risk by a factor of ten thousand is a very substantial exaggeration. It's hard for human beings to understand very large and very small nu…

> I think you are dramatically overstating the risk at 0.01%.

Perhaps, but the chance of losing >$100 one way or another (negligence, accidents, outright theft) is going to be a lot greater than 0.01% anyway.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#353

Post by CamperBob »

pg wrote: post #346
rkalla wrote: post #289

Why was the title of this post changed? It used to have the name "airbnb" in it earlier this morning, around 400 votes.

When submitters rewrite titles of posts we almost always (if we notice) replace them with the original title. We've done that since HN started. Otherwise submitters compete to make attention-getting titles, and you end up with the frontpage of reddit.

Otherwise submitters compete to make attention-getting titles, and you end up with the frontpage of reddit.

That sounds like an excellent matter to leave in the hands of the users who vote for/against stories.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#354

Post by varunsrin »

foxit wrote: post #351
Timothee wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well… I don't know. Sure, it's easy to think "look, YC changed the title because it gave a bad light to a YC company!" and that might be part of it. But the truth is that this story only got the spotlight here because it had AirBnB in the submission title, but the events it describes are not really specific to AirBnB. It could have happened through many other rental services. Also it's typically frowned upon changing…

Hi, I'm the submitter, and this was my first submission to Hacker News. Thanks for letting me know (both you and pg) about it being frowned upon to change the title - I'll know that for the future. As he states, it was changed for me. (The original I put in was "AirBnB: Crimes committed against a host".) I do have to disagree on the likelihood that this particular scenario would've happened to the host through other…

So, I'm still not entirely clear on this - did you change the post title?

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#355

Post by abaldwin »

brianchesky wrote: post #87

Hey everyone - we were shocked when we heard about this unsettling event. We have been working closely with the authorities, and we want to reassure our community that, with the help of our security infrastructure, we were able to assist the police in their investigation, and we understand from authorities that a suspect is now in custody. We've created a marketplace built on trust, transparency and authenticity with…

Airbnb's review system sucks! Why are there no dates on any of the reviews? What determines the order of the reviews? In my experience, I've seen more recent negative reviews get pushed below older positive reviews. Why are we not allowed to sort the reviews by date or rating like on any other reasonable review system? This is the opposite of 'transparent'.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#356

Post by pzxc »

18pfsmt wrote: post #230
Shenglong wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, don't get my wrong! I'm probably one of the most cheerful and happy people you'll ever meet in real life. I'm always smiling and enthusiastic with everything I do. And you're right - people tend to (usually) treat me the same way. Everything is beautiful on the surface, and that's just about never where I have a problem. I've been betrayed by a lot of people I trusted, and I've had to do some things (not for my…

I hope you continue your blogging, as it seems like quite an interesting story. It sucks you've been betrayed so many times by those you trust, but I hope you don't lose faith in your fellow humans. It truly saddens me to know people don't believe in the innate goodness of fellow human beings. Having said that, I have an overdeveloped sense of vengeance, and I do not trust the law to protect me suitably. I wish I wer…

I think most people are good but not because it's innate. I think humans are like electricity, seeking the path of least resistance. Attracted to pleasure, averse to pain, people judge circumstances and weigh their options according to what they think will be the most pleasant / least unpleasant set of consequences. Skewed by their predilection for short-term or long-term consequences. This results in people being essentially good, but not because it's intrinsic but rather because "good" generally has more positive consequences associated with it than evil.

"Should I steal this?" is always weighed more heavily against "Will I get caught?" and/or "Will this cause me guilt or affect my self-worth?" rather than "Is it wrong?"

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#357

Post by mcantelon »

sukuriant wrote: post #347
mcantelon wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call someone that acts against their conscience "good" (unless their survival is at stake).

Depending on what you're thinking the authority can do, "for survival's stake" may very well be exactly what those people in the Milgram Experiment were experiencing. "No, I-I can't, b-but he's in authority, and I'll be in trouble if I don't, so", he cringes, "I must."

The Milgram Experiment doesn't indicate that it in any way threatened the participants for non-compliance, yet these people were willing to knowingly endanger someone else's life. I think why they were willing to do that lies more with the belief that the authority would take the blame rather than any reasonable fear of punishment from the authority.

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#358

Post by foxit »

varunsrin wrote: post #354
foxit wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm the submitter, and this was my first submission to Hacker News. Thanks for letting me know (both you and pg) about it being frowned upon to change the title - I'll know that for the future. As he states, it was changed for me. (The original I put in was "AirBnB: Crimes committed against a host".) I do have to disagree on the likelihood that this particular scenario would've happened to the host through other…

So, I'm still not entirely clear on this - did you change the post title?

No, I did not. "As [pg] states, it was changed for me."

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#359

Post by edj »

chc wrote: post #297
intenex wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's possible that actually all 100 people are assholes.

Only in the same sense that we can say "intenex wears a diaper" (because you were once a baby). Defining somebody by an off moment is one way to look at things, but I'm not sure it's particularly reasonable.

Depends on the type of moment... I like Lord Acton's exhortation to "judge talent at its best and character at its worst".[1]

[1]: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_A...

Re: Violated: A traveler’s lost faith, a difficult lesson learned

#360

Post by pjscott »

chc wrote: post #297
intenex wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's possible that actually all 100 people are assholes.

Only in the same sense that we can say "intenex wears a diaper" (because you were once a baby). Defining somebody by an off moment is one way to look at things, but I'm not sure it's particularly reasonable.

Even then, I know plenty of people who are never assholes, even in an off moment.
Post reply on HN