David King, AirBnb's new director of "diversity and belonging," says AirBnb is aware of discrimination on their platform and they want to be a leader in addressing it. He says he's talking with Luca and others in finding potential solutions.
One thing that could help is removing people's names and photos or making them less prominent. But this isn't something AirBnb will improve their platform.
"The photos are on the platform for a reason," King said. "It really does help to aid in the trust between the guest and the host . . . You want to make sure that the guest who shows up at your door is the person you've been communicating with."
I wonder if the same effect comes up for white names coded as working class, as well? I seem to recall that for employment stuff, names that coded for "poor redneck white" did pretty much as badly as "poor urban black" in (at least some) studies.
"It really does help to aid in the trust between the guest and the host . . . You want to make sure that the guest who shows up at your door is the person you've been communicating with."
How does a photo do that? The photo just ensures that the person at your door matches the photo. But why is that important? That is, what info are you trying to glean from the photo?
It is evidence that the guest's online persona that the host has been communicating with is the same as the offline persona who shows up at host's door.
Right, it makes sure the photo matches. But why is that important/useful? Do people show up at the door who try to pretend they are the renter, but really aren't?
Why must there be trust in the transaction, and how is trust built by verifying the identity of a person you still don't know? The guest's credit card information is on hold and AirBnb has insurance policies in place. Of course the host can always bring forth a civil suit in worst case scenarios. There are protections in place for the increased risk of personal property being compromised.
Airbnb bookings are business transactions. I don't see why the host has to trust the guest anymore than a hotel/motel has to trust their guests.
> Inviting someone into your home is not just a business transaction.
You might be right, but renting a place is regulated in most Western countries. And I'm pretty sure racial discrimination is against the law in most of these countries too, as much as refusing a service based on the race of the "client".
In the majority of AirBnb bookings...it really is. I've used the service 10+ times in multiple cities, countries, and continents. A 10 minute overview of the area and how to read the Wifi password is about as personal as it's ever been. Let's not overplay this narrative that people are sharing a home with you as a means to rationalize discrimination.
I call Bullshit. AirBnb doesn't verify the photos. I know at least one male landlord I rented from that is using a picture of a female model as his picture. AirBnb has don't nothing to fix this.
AirBnB takes the position they are just the middle man (like craigslist) and any issues that come up or lies in the ads are purely a problem between landlord and renter. I've stayed at about 22 places of which 1/3 had lied in their ads. There's zero repercussion for the landlords from AirBnB. You're unlikely to cancel because you just arrived with luggage and have plans. Canceling once you arrive is really a huge PITA trying to find a new place within 24hr most likely at 2x to 4x the cost and waste a day not exploring your destination. After that your only recourse is a bad review but most likely the place has already been booked by several others so your review is guaranteed to be buried. Other renters also may not notice the lies. Examples: Claims it includes parking but doesn't. People that did't bring car won't care. Claims it's heated but it's not. People coming during a hot season won't care. Claims it's in one place (quiet) but it's actually a few blocks away (loud), AFAICT no one has noticed since it was highly rated. Claims it's a 1bd but it's actually a studio with a divider. People that don't need quiet (no frig noises) to sleep won't care.
AirBnb needs to have some kind of way of punishing the lies. As it is they just claim "not our problem".
"We’ve made a habit out of telling people not to read the comments online. But what started as a cynical in-joke has become a bad habit, and an excuse for enabling abuse across the web."
Just pointing out that while comments are terrible, it's Huffington Post that enables them to happen unchecked.
I did read that article when Anil first posted it and while I agree with him, it's tough to apply his lessons on a day-to-day basis. You might come across several articles per day, and on each one you have to decide what you want to do about the comments. You could use the opportunity to launch into Anil's manifesto, but most of the time you won't have the time or mental energy for that, and so just leaving without reading the comments is the only real option.
Edit: On further reflection, I guess Anil was writing as much or more about the "Don't read the comments" joke itself as about what to do when you come upon a comments section. And in that vein, it's true that my comment is pretty unhelpful. I've deleted it.
Black Americans have highlighted what and where is safe for them during traveling for a long time now. I'd say there needs to be a 21 century version of the Negro Motorist Green Book
Technology has advanced well past the printing press, so Airbnb can actually do much better than that.
Technology problems and social problems go hand-in-hand. For an easy example, consider moderation. Online communities are improved (the /r/science subreddit), or torn apart (Twitter users) based on the strength or weaknesses of the available moderation tools.
So what, technologically, could Airbnb do to improve its user experience for marginalized?
It could use inclusiveness as a search signal. This style of tactic (forcing improvements through algorithmic penalties) works extremely well when Google uses it for search rankings. For instance, if users self-reported their race, and listing X systematically fails to rent to people of certain backgrounds, penalize it in the rankings. Make it well-known that this is a factor, but don't tell people when they are violating it.
Something less-likely to work is a report/moderate cycle, to manually review these types of cases. The problem here is that it's almost impossible to review intent; maybe I really DID think my vacation was going to be cancelled, but then a project at work got cancelled so it came back.
"The problem here is that it's almost impossible to review intent; maybe I really DID think my vacation was going to be cancelled, but then a project at work got cancelled so it came back."
Sure, people will lie about intent, not even be aware of their subconscious bias against black people, whatever...
That's why you look at the aggregate totals. It's just not going to be the case that coincidentally black travelers have their rentals rejected at a larger rate because of random external forces like renter projects being canceled.
I hope not. The book was needed because these conditions were part of the landscape and couldn't really be changed, so travelers just had to deal with them. This behavior was known and expected.
Now, it's not expected and not typically tolerated. It survives by being obscure. Far better to draw attention to it and fight it than to just advise people of where to avoid.
Great minds think alike (or so I want to tell myself) I was going to (sadly) post the same info and suggest the same thing. It's an interesting, but sad, part of American history.
Fuck off with the discrimination articles. I'm not sure how people are actually voting this tripe up to the front page. Can't you get your justice/enrage news article porn somewhere else?
This is a people to people problem. The _only_ reason it would seem somewhat technologically/hackernews related is because it's a web service that it's happening through. Even then that's a low bar to clear in present times.
Has happened to me several times. Most blatant was a guy who had multiple open properties in Miami for Art Basel and denied that any of them were available. There should be some kind of agreement where hosts can not book a given slot if they deny a user in good standing that reservation. I'm not a host but I'm curious what are some legitimate reasons for a cancellation if the user agrees to all of the host's terms....
Why? Because the "host" is inviting people to stay in their home. I'd be totally justified in deciding that a user looks difficult to deal with (perhaps they look young and it's near a party time, or perhaps their other reviews indicate they're "difficult").
AirBNB isn't going to make everything right between two unknown parties. Minor hassles can add up into a major headache. Plus there's a lot of social pressure on reviews (both ways), so even that seems like limited recourse.
Edit: To clarify, I'm responding to why they should be able to refuse any guest.
Again, most hosts have published rules. If the guest agrees to those rules, is in good standing, and the place is available then how is there a legitimate reason for denying the reservation? "Because it's my house" is not a real reason. If you are that protective then why are you on Airbnb? If you are scared of parties in Miami during <insert holiday/allstar weekend> then why is your unit available at ALL on those dates?
Not applying to illegal hotel chains like the one you mentioned: AirBnB would have even more issues on hand if they mandated "you must accept all requests". That's probably a non starter for legitimate AirBnB hosts (not the people running a business).
Puh-lease. His multiple homes in one part of Miami? This guy runs a hotel. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in restaurants, hotels, and many other places.
> I don't think AirBnB recognises illegal hotel chains, officially.
Exactly. To do so would open them up to all sorts of complaints, civil rights and otherwise. To not do so would cost them millions of dollars in revenue. So, they choose to do nothing and pretend that the problem does not exist. I don't think it's fair to pretend that they are either blameless or powerless in this situation.
>"There should be some kind of agreement where hosts can not book a given slot if they deny a user in good standing that reservation."
Short of having someone "Verifying" the reason, this would have the unintended consequence of disallowing the host from using any reason, good or otherwise, to decline guests.
Would you agree that she shouldn't be forced to rent to a man she felt "uncomfortable" with, even if it was just a feeling? Especially talking about hosts that truly are offering their residence, part-time (i.e. not running a small hotel chain).
It seems the root issue is AirBnb is just facilitating, and the actual owners can and do choose who they let in their house (i.e. discriminate). While it's unfortunate and unfair, I'm not sure what regulatory environment could help with individuals. Perhaps allow reviews for people who could not rent a place?
People who discriminate based on race should at least come out and say who they refuse to rent to. If they're going to be racist pieces of shit they should at least own up to that and not waste the time of people who are trying to find somewhere to stay.
>not waste the time of people who are trying to find somewhere to stay
This is important as hosts usually have 24 hours to respond. In that time period alternative listings I may be interested in could be booked. This has happened to me multiple times and puts unnecessary pressure/stress on me as a user of the service. If host can reject requests on a whim it lessens the user experience. I know IMMEDIATELY if a hotel has any vacancy, why do I have to hold my breath and pray an AVAILABLE booking goes through just because I'm black?
Yeah, I don't like the idea of forcing people to do things they're uncomfortable with when it's their home.
AirBnb could easily alleviate the situation with rejection updates. Although reviews leave far too much to personal opinion.
For now, at least, a demographic for each place would solve a lot.
"Oh 200 people have requested to be here and 100 were rejected. Out of that 80% of all black men who requested have been rejected and 30% white men and 0% of women, across the board... I think I'm good..."
The one piece of actual research in this is about discrimination against "black sounding" names. In one quoted tweet the guy mentions having to use his middle name.
Has it occurred to anyone that the main issue here might be people with deliberately weird names, and not race per se?
If you are named Rainbow, Adolf, Cletus, or LaQuan, I'm going to conclude (from experience) your mother and you are both probably crazy.
Seems me to me that ultimately up to the owners to decide who they want to accept. If they turn down too many people with variation X, its their loss, and someone else will make money on that.
"The Invisible Hand will right all moral wrongs" is an argument that is unconvincing and historically hasn't been true. As is the idea that market forces will overall select for less discrimination.
After all, it has been a massive market opportunity to include women in the workforce since almost the dawn of civilization, and yet it's taken centuries for the allegedly rational market to realize this (and even then, not fully).
Ditto in the height of the Civil Rights era there was a massive market opportunity for restaurants that were willing to serve people of color - yet this largely didn't happen.
The market - and its participants - are frequently irrational. Or maybe more accurately, sociopolitical forces have the power to skew market behavior in huge ways.
This is also why I'm also often skeptical of attempts to cast equality as an economic good - it frequently is, but basing a worldview around it seems dangerous, precisely because the market often selects against justice.
"Ditto in the height of the Civil Rights era there was a massive market opportunity for restaurants that were willing to serve people of color - yet this largely didn't happen."
That's untrue. Black areas had high density of businesses that catered to blacks, and by large discrimination was legally mandated, not a market outcome. Business groups were in general in favor of dismantling segregation because it increased their potential market.
I'm not such a huge supporter of the invisible hand deciding "who gets what and why" (funnily enough there is a good book about markets by that name), rather I think freedom of association is important, especially when it comes to hosting someone in your home. However, if you're doing it all the time (running a business), you just won't do as well as the next guy who doesn't discriminate. By the time the next guy has an opportunity to use the capital he made to buy you out, it might be decades away, so imo on a long time scale, the problem is self correcting.
And I do agree with you that sometimes the market does select against justice. At the same time, prices are still the best indicators for a long of things that don't involve life or death situations.
The following is a totally reasonable point that some SJW on this site deleted. I would like to know exactly on what grounds.
----
The one piece of actual research in this is about discrimination against "black sounding" names. In one quoted tweet the guy mentions having to use his middle name.
Has it occurred to anyone that the main issue here might be people with deliberately weird names, and not race per se?
If you are named Rainbow, Adolf, Cletus, or LaQuan, I'm going to conclude (from experience) your mother and you are both probably crazy.
62 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadOne thing that could help is removing people's names and photos or making them less prominent. But this isn't something AirBnb will improve their platform.
"The photos are on the platform for a reason," King said. "It really does help to aid in the trust between the guest and the host . . . You want to make sure that the guest who shows up at your door is the person you've been communicating with."
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/26/475623339/-airbnbwhileblack-ho...
Wow.
How does a photo do that? The photo just ensures that the person at your door matches the photo. But why is that important? That is, what info are you trying to glean from the photo?
Airbnb bookings are business transactions. I don't see why the host has to trust the guest anymore than a hotel/motel has to trust their guests.
You might be right, but renting a place is regulated in most Western countries. And I'm pretty sure racial discrimination is against the law in most of these countries too, as much as refusing a service based on the race of the "client".
AirBnB takes the position they are just the middle man (like craigslist) and any issues that come up or lies in the ads are purely a problem between landlord and renter. I've stayed at about 22 places of which 1/3 had lied in their ads. There's zero repercussion for the landlords from AirBnB. You're unlikely to cancel because you just arrived with luggage and have plans. Canceling once you arrive is really a huge PITA trying to find a new place within 24hr most likely at 2x to 4x the cost and waste a day not exploring your destination. After that your only recourse is a bad review but most likely the place has already been booked by several others so your review is guaranteed to be buried. Other renters also may not notice the lies. Examples: Claims it includes parking but doesn't. People that did't bring car won't care. Claims it's heated but it's not. People coming during a hot season won't care. Claims it's in one place (quiet) but it's actually a few blocks away (loud), AFAICT no one has noticed since it was highly rated. Claims it's a 1bd but it's actually a studio with a divider. People that don't need quiet (no frig noises) to sleep won't care.
AirBnb needs to have some kind of way of punishing the lies. As it is they just claim "not our problem".
"We’ve made a habit out of telling people not to read the comments online. But what started as a cynical in-joke has become a bad habit, and an excuse for enabling abuse across the web."
Just pointing out that while comments are terrible, it's Huffington Post that enables them to happen unchecked.
Edit: On further reflection, I guess Anil was writing as much or more about the "Don't read the comments" joke itself as about what to do when you come upon a comments section. And in that vein, it's true that my comment is pretty unhelpful. I've deleted it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book
Technology problems and social problems go hand-in-hand. For an easy example, consider moderation. Online communities are improved (the /r/science subreddit), or torn apart (Twitter users) based on the strength or weaknesses of the available moderation tools.
So what, technologically, could Airbnb do to improve its user experience for marginalized?
It could use inclusiveness as a search signal. This style of tactic (forcing improvements through algorithmic penalties) works extremely well when Google uses it for search rankings. For instance, if users self-reported their race, and listing X systematically fails to rent to people of certain backgrounds, penalize it in the rankings. Make it well-known that this is a factor, but don't tell people when they are violating it.
Something less-likely to work is a report/moderate cycle, to manually review these types of cases. The problem here is that it's almost impossible to review intent; maybe I really DID think my vacation was going to be cancelled, but then a project at work got cancelled so it came back.
Sure, people will lie about intent, not even be aware of their subconscious bias against black people, whatever...
That's why you look at the aggregate totals. It's just not going to be the case that coincidentally black travelers have their rentals rejected at a larger rate because of random external forces like renter projects being canceled.
Now, it's not expected and not typically tolerated. It survives by being obscure. Far better to draw attention to it and fight it than to just advise people of where to avoid.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/green-book-helped-ke...
How can you think it's pertinent?
Furthermore, AirBnB is a tech darling, and a YC company.
AirBnB are going to put some information out about this. What should they say? What should they not say?
Fuck off with you ogreveins. Go blow off your own rage somewhere pertinent to you.
AirBNB isn't going to make everything right between two unknown parties. Minor hassles can add up into a major headache. Plus there's a lot of social pressure on reviews (both ways), so even that seems like limited recourse.
Edit: To clarify, I'm responding to why they should be able to refuse any guest.
Exactly. To do so would open them up to all sorts of complaints, civil rights and otherwise. To not do so would cost them millions of dollars in revenue. So, they choose to do nothing and pretend that the problem does not exist. I don't think it's fair to pretend that they are either blameless or powerless in this situation.
Short of having someone "Verifying" the reason, this would have the unintended consequence of disallowing the host from using any reason, good or otherwise, to decline guests.
Except it is illegal to do so in a good number of countries. Racists know that. That's why they make up excuses.
This is important as hosts usually have 24 hours to respond. In that time period alternative listings I may be interested in could be booked. This has happened to me multiple times and puts unnecessary pressure/stress on me as a user of the service. If host can reject requests on a whim it lessens the user experience. I know IMMEDIATELY if a hotel has any vacancy, why do I have to hold my breath and pray an AVAILABLE booking goes through just because I'm black?
AirBnb could easily alleviate the situation with rejection updates. Although reviews leave far too much to personal opinion.
For now, at least, a demographic for each place would solve a lot.
"Oh 200 people have requested to be here and 100 were rejected. Out of that 80% of all black men who requested have been rejected and 30% white men and 0% of women, across the board... I think I'm good..."
Has it occurred to anyone that the main issue here might be people with deliberately weird names, and not race per se?
If you are named Rainbow, Adolf, Cletus, or LaQuan, I'm going to conclude (from experience) your mother and you are both probably crazy.
After all, it has been a massive market opportunity to include women in the workforce since almost the dawn of civilization, and yet it's taken centuries for the allegedly rational market to realize this (and even then, not fully).
Ditto in the height of the Civil Rights era there was a massive market opportunity for restaurants that were willing to serve people of color - yet this largely didn't happen.
The market - and its participants - are frequently irrational. Or maybe more accurately, sociopolitical forces have the power to skew market behavior in huge ways.
This is also why I'm also often skeptical of attempts to cast equality as an economic good - it frequently is, but basing a worldview around it seems dangerous, precisely because the market often selects against justice.
That's untrue. Black areas had high density of businesses that catered to blacks, and by large discrimination was legally mandated, not a market outcome. Business groups were in general in favor of dismantling segregation because it increased their potential market.
And I do agree with you that sometimes the market does select against justice. At the same time, prices are still the best indicators for a long of things that don't involve life or death situations.
----
The one piece of actual research in this is about discrimination against "black sounding" names. In one quoted tweet the guy mentions having to use his middle name.
Has it occurred to anyone that the main issue here might be people with deliberately weird names, and not race per se?
If you are named Rainbow, Adolf, Cletus, or LaQuan, I'm going to conclude (from experience) your mother and you are both probably crazy.