I am thinking of a constructive way to solve problems such as these. What do you think of making public the host's acceptance and rejection rate by race and gender?
Consider if the host is black and the only caucasian people that inquire about the BnB are obviously hillbillies. Let's say he doesn't have a problem with caucasian people in general, but really doesn't like hillbillies. Let's say he promptly rejects them all. His rejection rate will make him look like he dislikes caucasians.
And why, exactly, should the homeowner's right to make superficial snap judgments about people be protected? Why does AirBnB have some obligation to protect his image, which he brings upon himself with his own choices? Why is his image more important than somebody else's ability to find basic services like lodging without being judged or excluded based on outward appearance?
For the host? Definitely! For AirBnB? Definitely, since AirBnb serves not only guests, but hosts as well.
If I can't choose who to allow into my home, I am not using AirBnB as a host. I am confident that almost everyone shares this sentiment.
Imagine if AirBnB required you to let anyone stay at your home. AirBnB wouldn't last another day.
I agree that you shouldn't make judgements based upon only the profile picture. On the other hand, if they post things I find unattractive (like making fun of people of another race), I'm definitely not going to let them in my home. (OP seems to be a victim of the former and I sympathize with him)
So you are saying people don't have a right to choose for themselves who they want to rent their home to? It isn't illegal being a bigot or religiously deluded yet.
I am saying that AirBnB has no duty to hide which hosts are racist from its customers, and, in fact, highlighting the information is a fair way to combat the problem-- and let customers punish hosts with their business-- without being authoritarian.
While that's certainly true, it's a bit of a cop-out to suggest that as the optimal solution.
Hotels have their place, but for extended vacations, having an entire home at your disposal can really change the quality of the vacation. More space to spread out and relax, a kitchen so you can cook some meals, etc.
Don't plaster your face all over your profiles? The early net developed around a culture of eschewing pictures and even choosing one's own name, putting the focus on the content of what was said. When one puts a picture front and center and you bring in a whole lot of monkey-sphere bullshit. Of course AirBNB gets blame for pushing users to do that, making it so that not having a picture is weird but using a picture of someone else is fraud.
It would obviously be politically unpalatable, but in a way it might be better if say AirBNB implemented support for discrimination on their platform. It's obviously something that exists, so reifying it into the formal system should make it easier to optimize away.
Not going to work; trust me, I've tried. I tried for years to avoid getting my pictures online, they got there anyway and are a Google search away. Now I've stopped caring.
If you want to participate in social media (which you have to, some people won't communicate any other way) you've got to accept that not everyone views your privacy the way you do.
And even of it did work, it wouldn't solve the issue since discrimination based on name can happen just as easily for people with obviously-black or obviously-Islamic names.
Within bounds of statistical variance, this is an interesting idea. I'm thinking of small sample sizes and the negatives of publicly posting an algorithmicly-derived statement of, effectively, racism. And do we normalize against those factors being transparent to renters? (If I reject an applicant with no photo who happens to be black, does that "count"?)
But if you get it right, is there any legitimate explanation for why statistical differences would exist? Or do you baseline against the entire AirBNB population (which may be biased in of itself)?
Unfortunately, a service that connects people with other people directly to rent their homes is always going to have issues like this.
I'm not sure that it's fair to expect Airbnb to "fix" this. Why? Because if they prevent people from discriminating on the very evil dimensions of race, gender, sexual identification, religion, etc, then they will also prevent people from discriminating on the basis of reasonable factors like "5 guys from 19 to 21 from a fraternity".
Yea AirBNB ultimately can try to mitigate, but cannot solve completely this problem. Even if they try to blind the profile, at some point the guest has to show up at the host's house. In a way, it's probably better to avoid the racist host before that occurs.
Of course, discriminating in this way is already illegal for normal rentals, but when you have rentals of rooms in people's houses I believe it actually is legal for hosts to discriminate in some cases.
I really can't see how any sort of effective enforcement method could exist other than waiting for the racist assholes to die, sadly.
> Of course, discriminating in this way is already illegal for normal rentals, but when you have rentals of rooms in people's houses I believe it actually is legal for hosts to discriminate in some cases.
In California (the rules on this vary considerably by jurisdiction within the US), there is generally very little limit on discrimination by those renting out a room to a single roomer/boarder (but not if they are renting to multiple roomers/boarders), in an owner-occupied single family dwelling, though they generally can't advertise preference on any protected axis except gender, and only for that when there are shared living areas.
In a case like this, renting out the entire place when the terms of the rental is that the owner won't be there, this exception wouldn't seem to apply, though Idaho may have different rules (I'm having more trouble quickly finding a good description of Idaho's rules.)
> In a case like this, renting out the entire place when the terms of the rental is that the owner won't be there, this exception wouldn't seem to apply, though Idaho may have different rules (I'm having more trouble quickly finding a good description of Idaho's rules.)
Good luck, there's not much for rental regulations in the state of Idaho, and literally nothing for short-term rentals. It would come down to whether renting a property on AirBnB constitutes a lessor/lessee relationship, in which case the Fair Housing Act automatically kicks in.
Serious (offtopic) metaquestion: why is the postmodern view that all people, including violent criminals, are victims/products of their environment, but racists are uniquely and irredeemably evil to their core?
I don't think the sentiment was "die racists die!", but rather, "well, those backwards thinking assholes from the pre-60s are dying off anyway -- might as well wait em out".
Or that racism is an absolute. It's not. People can reject some other people in any direction, change course for good or bad at any point in life because of experiences or media, and this has usually nothing to do with personnal conviction. Just fear.
Usually it's more about a form of unstable and contextual xenophobia.
But it's not just against people. Also about all living things, object, behavior, events...
People are label racists like it's a deep nature, while it's most likely a small symptom of poor education + a twisted defensive reaction that is bigger than that, and is not particularly linked to race.
> why is the postmodern view that all people, including violent criminals, are victims/products of their environment, but racists are uniquely and irredeemably evil to their core?
Well, I don't agree that that is the postmodern view, unless you define "postmodern" to specifically mean that view so that it is tautologically true; particularly, I don't believe that its all that common for any person (regardless of whether the label "postmodern" applies) to hold simultaneously to both of those beliefs. They may both be beliefs that are visible in some segment of the population, and there may be some overlap, but I don't think there is much correlation.
But, in any case, even if they were commonly held together, there is nothing inconsistent in believing that all beliefs and behavior patterns are products of the interaction of the individual with the external environment, and believing that there are certain beliefs and behavior patterns that, once established, are not correctable through any change in the environment that other people can effect (even if the same behaviors/beliefs may be made less likely to manifest in those who have not already manifested them), such that those behaviors/beliefs only go away when the people holding them die.
I think that the postmodern view is that racists are absolutely redeemable, and products of their environment.
But I suspect that the nature of postmodernism means we won't really be able to resolve what views are and aren't consistent with it to any objectively satisfying degree ;-)
Once something like this happens, AirBnB puts a "I'm a racist" sticker on the host's profile? I mean, if you're going to say it's better to avoid the racist host before it occurs, maybe avoid it just a touch sooner so the guest doesn't even make contact in the first place? Oh and make the profile public of course.
I'd seriously be fine with hosts having a "I'm an anti-gay bigot, don't stay here" indicator prominently displayed. It's like that fine American tradition, "Irish need not apply". And I'm a Murphy. It's gross behavior but I think racists, bigots, etc. need public exposure for the full consequences of their beliefs to be realized.
I really do not want to do business with someone who's a racist even though I'm white. I don't want to do business with misgynists even though I'm not a woman. So give these hosts a permanent badge of honor for all guests to see, rather than sweeping the problem under the carpet in a way that effectively allows these cranky hosts to discriminate almost anonymously and only incidently once an implicit agreement to rent has been made (even if it's just an inquiry).
I'm not proposing the only form of consequences is monetary.
Trump is overwhelmingly perceived as a con artist who cons only the most magnificently bored and/or stupid people of the earth. And not always a successful one either or he wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy, he could have just conned another handful of investors. Clearly some of his messes were too obvious for even the dumbest rich people of the earth to fall for.
And note that this thing hasn't really played itself out fully yet, so we'll just have to see. For all we know, he may be declaring bankruptcy again to get out of candidacy debt.
My point is just that there are a lot of people who reward known racists - so putting a label such as "I'm an anti-gay bigot" would reinforce people who think this is appropriate, which can result in even scarier things - things like having a person who is "overwhelmingly perceived as a con artist" being nominated as the Republican party's presidential nominee.
> So give these hosts a permanent badge of honor for all guests to see
Why not just kick them off the platform? If they don't approve of a behavior, and want it to stop, why should they continue working with people who they know for a fact are engaging in that behavior?
No particularly good reason, except a bit of schadenfreude perhaps. I guess if I were balancing the pleasure of a scarlet letter stitched into the public profile of racists and bigots, vs that of just kicking them off the platform? Hmm. Tough call for me personally. But it's not up to me, so I can't really say I have a good reason for NOT kicking them off the platform, except maybe a family member or friend finds out about their twisted badge of (dis)honor.
Maybe it's a bad idea and it just encourages a sort of tribalism where the bigots do business with each other and as a social we really should say, no you can't use public goods like AirBnB. Yes it's a private company, however it is also acting like a bridge to what has historically been a place of public accommodation: hotels.
Some people are saying "but I should get to decide who stays in my house" or "but I want to see their picture first so I can evaluate him." Ok, I'm fine with that. A house is not a public accommodation like a hotel. So label the host as a racist.
They could potentially anonymize race by redacting the photos/names until after the booking acceptance, no?
Discriminating by age could be considered reasonable (don't want a large group of college students) and I see valid reasons to discriminate by gender (Women may not want to book male guests if they're sharing the same space and vice-versa)...
You'd still run into the problem of real-life racists (a problem for minorities everywhere, all the time)... but such a policy would likely eliminate many racists from the site through the frustration of not being able to discriminate.
How is discriminating by age reasonable? Not all 20 year olds are booking for 15 people. If someone lies about the number of people attending, then kick them out.
Car insurance providers discriminate against young drivers for similar reasons: you're more risky. I wouldn't entrust the care of my entire house to college students.
For many purposes it would be cost prohibitive to run detailed background checks on individuals to discover every relevant fact like that, so they rely on aggregates, which works well enough.
I'm sure there are, but it's kind of standard that most 18-21 year olds have only 1-2 years experience in an independent apartment/house. Just like 17 year olds typically only have 1 year experience driving.
I wouldn't even rule it out entirely, you'd just need references (a decent rating).
The same age group is faced with similar problems renting apartments because they often lack credit ratings and previous references.
You can say that about blacks (esp males): they're more risky. Just because you're not supposed to look at those actuarial tables, doesn't mean it's not a statistical reality.
Maybe the car insurance example was bad, but I think the situation is a little more complex than pure statistics.
The US has a very long history of racism against minorities. It's been difficult to get a strong system in place to combat racism. Ageism against young people has a built in correction system called aging.
But is that not what the review system is for? What prevents a host from reviewing potential guests' history on a case-by-case basis to determine their level of risk?
Black men are more risky because of a history of systemic racism forcing them into situations where they need survival and status systems outside of the law. Young people are more risky because young people are impulsive and stupid. So it seems appropriate to treat these two things differently.
And to add to what oh_sigh said, what makes you think that the reasons for discriminating by gender are valid? In my country (the USA) we passed laws decades ago making precisely that (discrimination in lodging based on gender) illegal.
If the situation were renting out a stand-alone apartment or house, I agree entirely. Gender discrimination is unwarranted.
In situations where you're renting a bed or a room in a shared common space — I don't think it's unreasonable to be more selective about gender. Is it discriminatory for colleges to not group men/women together in dorm room?
Again, look at the severity disparity here:
would it be socially acceptable for a woman to say "I don't want a male roommate?"
would it be socially acceptable for a white person to say "I don't want a black roommate?"
> Is it discriminatory for colleges to not group men/women together in dorm room?
No, but that's not relevant. The correct analogy would be "Is it discriminatory for colleges to refuse residence to one gender?" That said, I respect the right of anyone to choose who they let into their home, even if I might disagree with the criteria.
Minority opinion here, but not all discrimination by race is bad and allowing people to discriminate by race/community can actually have desirable effects.
For example: If I'm American, I might donate to a service that helps American homeless, and would not have donated otherwise if the service was global.
Similarly, If I'm black, I might donate to a service that only helps blacks and would not have donated otherwise. If I'm Caucasian and feel a strong sense of community for my heritage I might do the same, etc.
People feel more sympathy to those they can relate with -- I don't think that will change for many years.
Why does a property owner need to see pictures of the guests? Hotels don't make you upload a picture before you come. If AirBNB wants pictures for verification, that's fine, but they shouldn't release them to the guest.
There's a difference between hotels (which have limited damages guest are capable of, which are insured against same, and which have protocols for handling these issues) and somebody renting out a room in their home/apartment.
Remember, you're effectively inviting over people into your home. Your safe space. Your nest. It seems really, really weird that somebody would do that without at least knowing what the person looks like.
And that's before you even get into the security issues of having to blindly trust AirBNB (or somebody claiming to be related to AirBNB) that this rando is authorized.
If you aren't comfortable renting your home to random people then don't use AirBNB, plain and simple. Buy a second home for commercial purposes and AirBNB rent it out instead (and if that gives you pause then maybe you should reconsider the whole idea of being a small-time landlord with AirBNB).
And if you are renting your home with AirBNB and _don't_ have some type of commercial rental insurance or coverage through your main policy you are skating on very thin ice. Even the nicest looking person in the world could ruin your place, or at the very least hurt themselves seriously in your home and bankrupt you with a massive liability lawsuit. If you aren't ready to be a landlord and abide by their rules, regulations, etc. then don't rent out with AirBNB.
AirBNB is claiming to be exactly that though - renting a spare place in someone's house. It doesn't claim to be renting commercial properties or a hotel. (As such it can't guarantee that the owners of houses won't be arseholes)
Look past the disruptive startup hype and read the fine print, AirBNB absolutely is warning you to abide by all local laws and regulations. If they didn't do that they would be open to big lawsuits. At the end of the day your insurance company, a judge, etc. isn't going to buy the excuse 'but AirBNB didn't tell me I couldn't rent without x, y, z...'
> If you aren't comfortable renting your home to random people then don't use AirBNB, plain and simple.
Why? Says who? You're coming up with this strict concept of what AirBnB must be, but I see no reason to agree with you. It's as absurd as saying "if you aren't comfortable giving a ride to a hitchhiker with a rifle on his back and a blood-stained shirt, then don't give a ride to any hitchhiker."
this is why the whole business model of airbnb is flawed, their whole business model consists of doging regulations, quality and safety standards, and fair treatment requirements that any usual business is subject to. Same applies to uber.
Vacation Rentals have been around for a long time longer than Airbnb. In fact, there is nothing unique about Airbnb at all except it is more usable.
I do have regulations in my town, and they are a nightmare. The regulations only benefit hotels by discouraging people from renting out their houses or rooms.
Property owners sometimes interact physically with the guests. Given that fact, there are a lot of reasons why the property owners should be able to see pictures of the guests. Being able to visually identify that the person you're interacting with face to face is in fact your guest, is a critical safety measure.
Why do they need to see the picture before booking? If they only want to know what the guests look like to recognise them in person when they arrive, Airbnb would only show the picture after booking.
If Airbnb required and stored pictures they could be used to identify them in case they trash the house.
I can't think of anything else the property owners would claim to use the profile pictures for.
Would showing the picture post-booking only really help, though?
I admit that I'm not familiar with the booking process on AirBNB, but I'd be really surprised to hear that a booking, once completed, can't be cancelled. Wouldn't the same people cancelling reservations now just cancel them post-booking instead?
It could be done just before they are about to arrive. There are many ways to make sure people are not discriminated on Airbnb and the time it would take to implement those changes would most likely cost less than the bad press they are getting.
Even if they don't care about people being discriminated against they could at least think about the loss of potential customers.
Consistently reneging on bookings, though, is a strong signal, coupled with reports of discrimination. It's much easier to brush off before hand.. "oh, our plans actually changed, so we can accommodate you.
(granted, this can still happen, legitimately, even in a post-booking display mode.. but post-booking cancellations could be a signal for flakiness and, overall, a reason to put hosts on notice that they need to shape up)
If I let people into my house I want to see them and decide whether I want to let them in. As far as I remember airbnb requires pictures. Maybe they shouldn't do that and let property owners decide whether they want to see a picture and reject people without.
> I'm not sure that it's fair to expect Airbnb to "fix" this.
Its perfectly fair to stop using AirBnB if you are concerned about this until and unless they fix it, independently of whether you "expect" them to fix it, when there are alternative methods of booking lodging where this problem is, at a minimum, less of an issue.
The notion of "protected class" specifically addresses which groups need protection and which don't, at least in the eyes of the law. Sex, race, disability are on the list. College kids are not.
More specifically, the list of protections for rental discrimination in the particular jurisdiction that the rental occurs in would be appropriate, since its actually the legal requirement. (This may be different than "protected classes" under other laws.)
Yes, but it looks like owner-occupied homes that are renting out a bedroom on AirBnB are exempt[1] from those discrimination laws. Paraphrase of law: "other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"
Basically, it is legal for homeowners to discriminate on race for their personal dwelling. The concept appears to be related to the "roommate wanted" being exempted from the FHA Fair Housing Act.[2]
There may be a grey area regarding a larger 6-bedroom home that the owner occupies but is renting out for a week while he's out of town. The owner doesn't have to physically share the space simultaneously with the renter. I can't tell if anti-discrimination laws applies to that situation.
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
> Basically, is legal for homeowners to discriminate on race
There is a big difference between "not a violation of federal law" and "legal". Many states have anti-discrimination laws with broader scope than the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Which may be substantially narrower in applicability than the federal one. (That difference is actually the main relevant difference I was thinking of when I posted the grandparent post.)
>Many states have anti-discrimination laws with broader scope than the Federal Fair Housing Act.
That's true but I can't think of one example of a state having tougher discrimination laws than the Federal code in regards to a homeowner's personal dwelling.
California's roomer/roommate exemption is significantly more limited than the Federal one, so that's at least one state:
1. The federal exemption is a blanket one from the anti-discrimination rules, California's allows most discrimination but still limits advertising and still prohibits discrimination on medical condition or age (over 40)
2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.
Reading the actual laws doesn't find any exceptions to the exemptions for roommates and homeowners renting out a private room. The "medical condition" and "age" (along with "gender", "race", etc) are all part of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The only age-specific laws (51.2) was discrimination against younger people being acceptable so as to maintain the housing for senior citizens.
In any case, it looks like the exemption for roommates based on it not being a "business". The law in (51) is directed at business establishments and not roommates/homeowners sharing a house/apartment. Based on a plain reading of the previous 4 cites, an 18-year-old girl in California can refuse to share accommodations with a 70-year-old asthma sufferer with a noisy oxygen tank.
>2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.
Ok got it. But I wasn't using "tougher discrimination" in the sense that one state allows 1 room (or some other threshold number) instead of 5. Instead, I meant "tougher" as in certain state says you can't discriminate on race for the private bedroom in your house -- whereas FHA says you can.
> There may be a grey area regarding a larger 6-bedroom home that the owner occupies but is renting out for a week while he's out of town. The owner doesn't have to physically share the space simultaneously with the renter. I can't tell if anti-discrimination laws applies to that situation.
Exemptions to federal statues may not apply in this case if the owner is renting out >4 bedrooms.
The owner-occupied housing exemption only applies to buildings with 4 or fewer units.
The single family home exemption may still apply, but if you're rending out all the bedrooms, it's probably gray enough that you should avoid overt racial discrimination.
But you really ought to avoid overt racial discrimination in any case...
which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence
Tons and tons of places on AirBnB are not residences but full-time hotels. This is why the site is so hated by established interest groups. Tons of entrepreneurs are out there buying up or renting long-term housing and converting it into short-term rentals, all while avoiding the fees and regulations that apply to traditional hotel businesses.
When renting out part of your home, does protected status apply? Last I remember if a woman only wants another woman to live in her home that is legal even though gender is a protected class. Only after passing certain limits does protected classes come into play (I think it is if the property being rented isn't one you live in or if you rent to more than 3 people and some other such limits).
> When renting out part of your home, does protected status apply?
That depends on local law; in California, it doesn't if you have exactly 1 roomer in a single-family, owner-occupied home. (There are still restrictions on advertising preferences, except gender, and then only when there are shared living spaces.)
Alibaba has a feature where they list the response rate of sellers to queries sent via the site. This could be an angle for AirBnB. Log rejections and acceptances and ignores. Run reports on the data for a scorecard. Egregious violators can dealt with then in a number of different ways i.e warning notices, lower search rankings, burning cross badge beside username etc.
Yet more evidence (as if we needed any) that racism is alive and well. I was going to try to be all superior by saying "in the US", but it's not really confined to the US[1]. It happens everywhere where there's any obvious way to do the whole "us" and "them" thing, whether that's skin color, gender, etc.
We humans can be terrible :(.
[1] Plus, I caught myself doing the exact thing I was lamenting. (Not "racism" per se, but still "us-vs-them".)
Not joking. It's unreasonable to conclude any sort of discrimination based on a single sample, but if I had to guess a malicious motive, I would pick anti-young-male sentiment over racism. This is probably not very satisfying if you came for a witch hunt.
We have a minority South Asian population in my East African country. The South Asians are relatively wealthier than the other groups living in the country. However, it is not uncommon for one coming across adverts for houses to let, sell, and even a job or two, targeting only vegetarians. One of the jobs wanted only Gujarati speakers. While this is (or should be) illegal, the same happens quite openly.
I know it's just a blog post, but if we consider blogging to be journalism (even in some remote sense), then the accepted practice is to reach out to the other side and ask for comments. She could - obviously - refuse, then you write she refused comment. Or she might have some explanation that doesn't involve racial bias. It may be some BS excuse, we might not believe in it, etc. but this is her problem and it doesn't change the principle. On the other hand, not even letting that person know that you made the situation public, and offered conclusions at that, is kind of shady to me. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned (in the sense of believing in journalism standards, not racial segregation).
> I know it's just a blog post, but if we consider blogging to be journalism
Some blogging aspires to be the kind of neutral, third-party journalism to which that standard applies, but this kind of sharing of one's personal experience is not that kind of blogging.
It's more like a personal version of an institutional press release, which might be the trigger and starting point for a journalistic story, but isn't one itself.
Where the boundary lies is subjective in my opinion, personally I feel it's better overall to "err on the safe side" as far as these matters go. At any rate, I would be quite simply curious about she would have to say
While I get what you're saying, this form of blogging is closer to opinion pieces, not journalism; it's why news papers formerly segregated the op-ed pieces from the rest of the paper, as it's less about a journalistic investigation and more a writing opining/pontificating. Blogging can have all sots of forms, some closer to news, some closer to personal diaries/journals. Based on the piece, this is closer to the latter, someone's personal experience made public.
I realize that nowadays it's not as clear cut when you're reading an op-ed and when you're reading a piece of news, and sometimes it seems like authors try to blur the lines, but the distinction exists for a reason. The author of the piece did not really seem to try to make this anything more than "this is my story", which should set the tone and understanding of the writing he's about to present.
It sucks that this happened; some people can really be scumbags.
However, I'm really not sure that there is a solution to this. People in general are racist/biased/sexist/thing-ist, all over the world. Trying to regulate that fact doesn't make sense (how would you even police that?), but perhaps confronting her about it could help. If you sent her your blog post, detailing the steps that you took, she could come around and tell you a more reasonable explanation, like that her schedule is unstable and she had lots of other offers.
Some people could refuse to lend the place without seeing profile pictures, so you will have to make that "show phony profile pictures", which is in the category of poor idea.
I think the key to eliminating most of this behavior is to not show the picture right off the bat since it allows people to be subtly racist. If they have to ask for a picture before denying a guest then it's a lot more obvious they're being racist.
The more overt racists can be dealt with by doing simple analysis of denied/cancelled bookings and banning them.
I'm guessing AirBnB will eventually have to implement one or both of these approaches to avoid discrimination lawsuits.
> However, I'm really not sure that there is a solution to this. People in general are racist/biased/sexist/thing-ist, all over the world. Trying to regulate that fact doesn't make sense (how would you even police that?)
We made a lot of progress on this a few decades ago with fair housing laws. It wasn't instant or perfect, but it absolutely was policeable. You can't police how people feel, but you can, empirically, police whether people get to act on their feelings to deny other people civil rights.
Of course, you need a working regulatory framework for such policing to be able to have an effect.
They could police it the same way bloggers are policing it: If Airbnb sees a suspicious rejection of a person of color, Airbnb themselves could try rebooking it under a fake white profile. If it gets accepted, ban the host.
Yeah, when I say suspicious rejection I mean probably as part of a pattern. And maybe you're right, pattens alone might be enough to ban. But with a "test" like this Airbnb could take action sooner and more definitively.
(Also it should be noted, "looked untrustworthy" can be code for racism.)
When we applaud the AirBnBs and Ubers for going around regulation to get the outcome we want, isn't it inevitable that many will use some to exact the outcome they want but that violates social rules we thought were in place?
Yes, like the fact that there is not a single accessible Uber vehicle in New York City... we THOUGHT the ADA had outlawed that sort of thing, but apparently not.
In the UK it is illegal to refuse to let your property based on the person's race [1] and I am sure it's the same way in many other western countries.
People using Airbnb to rent out their property are effectively breaking the laws and due to loopholes in regulations cannot be held responsible. It's a lot more than just social rules.
Dunno how common this is but in my home state of Indiana the non-discrimination laws include specific exemptions for properties used as homes by the lessor. I imagine that would provide an out for people like Crissie if it ever came to a civil suit.
These roommate exceptions are definitely needed for a verity of reason. Living with someone is deeply personal as such you should be able to discriminate more that a simple commercial lease arrangement, however from the story I doubt they would apply as the author states "crissie" is in California and not on the property, or at least it is not her primary residence, might be a vacation home, or it might be pure rental income.
Just to set the record straight for Crissie's sake. Crissie is the friend he was going to visit and is not responsible for any of the discrimination.
Also, the racist does not use this property as a primary residence. It's one among many vacation rentals she owns so she has no protections under the law.
As long as resource scarcity exists racism/*-isms are inevitable. Its the simplest strategy human mind can conjure - divide and conquer, divide up some resources with members of my group, and use them.
Extremely cheap energy (fusion power maybe?) might solve it for good by alleviating survival worries in the human psyche, no amount of regulation or rules can.
Edit: resource scarcity from the perspective of the human psyche, which affects worries about survival. The unconscious worries about there not being enough stuff, so that you might as well divide it up with your group.
What? Resource scarcity should discourage things like this by encouraging people to maximize profits. If I only rent my house to whites, it limits my market. My neighbor who's willing to rent to anybody is more likely to be able to get bookings and more likely to get more money.
That would be a rational response. The psychology here is not rational and is based on evolution under conditions where small tribes competed for scarce resources over a wide area.
Scarcity -> Identify a vulnerable out group -> Attack out group and steal their hunting grounds
Our brain stems don't know what millennium they are in.
In the long term your prediction will be correct - those willing to rent to anybody will acquire more money, and eventually might be able to boot out the other more "choosy" party. A virtuous monopoly of sorts.
I was talking about the unconscious worry about resources and survival, not the rational economic kind.
Discrimination in business is likely predicated on the belief that people of group X are more likely to damage your property than people of group Y, and that the risk is great enough to avoid doing business with group X altogether, even though it means a smaller pool of potential tenants/customers.
No? Your understanding of racism is wrong, I think.
It's not a "I'm going to reserve my airbnb for my racial group only!" it's: "I'm uncomfortable letting someone of another race rent my house, because I am not familiar enough with their culture to know if they're going to wreck my house or not."
Racism & sexism are bad business practices. *-ists have to operate in a smaller labor or customer pool in order to operate. The AirBnB operator lost 30 minutes of organization in this blog, so you're either wasting time or you end hiring a lower-quality member of your own racial group.
I'll make the claim that: as long as resource scarcity exists, there is an economic pressure to be less racist.
Rationally - yes absolutely. If there is a scarcity of tenants, why would you want to turn them away for any reason.
I was talking in the terms of the human unconscious - the knowledge reaffirmed your entire life, and for as long as humans existed that stuff is scarce. And if stuff is scarce and that affects your survival - you might as well secure it for yourself and your group (the reason being that your immediate group is more likelly to support you, e.g arabs got a proverb about this - me against my brother, me and my brother against the men of our village, our village against another village, and so on).
If resource scarcity could be alleviated through cheap energy, that might modify this base human survival mechanism which is a reason for in-groups/out-groups.
"Race" is a fairly arbitrary name for one axis of socially constructed perceived in-group/out-group distinction, but the hypothesis suggested above can equally plausibly apply to any perceived in-group/out-group distinction regardless of whether the basis for it is in a "well-defined concept", so I don't see your challenge as particularly effective.
They never said "As long as resource scarcity exists otherness is inevitable.", they specifically mentioned race.
I don't believe 'racism' in the traditional sense (especially institutional racism) is inevitable at all. Sure you can change the argument and argue about a different thing, but we are specifically talking about race here.
Everyone is saying "well obviously AirBnB can't end racism" but what have they actually done to solve their local problem? Have they sent out an email to their hosts that says "please don't discriminate based on race"? Is there a way to report hosts engaging in discriminatory practices? If so are those taken seriously?
Not being able to solve the problem 100% doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do anything.
(Now, maybe they have done a bunch of stuff, I don't know, but it seems like there's still a problem)
AirBnB is a platform to connect vendors and buyers; they're closer to a measenger app than a hotel business. Airbnb trying to end hosts racism makes as much sense as Facebook censoring racist messages.
That's like saying Amazon's not responsible for the products sold on its platform.
There's plenty Airbnb can do to ensure their hosts aren't racists. They have complete oversight of the booking process. They can detect racist rejection patterns and investigate.
Nextdoor is a messaging platform too, even more so than AirBnB, but the difference is that they are taking steps to combat racial profiling on their platform. Steps like meeting with concerned parties in-person and having open dialogue with their user-base. They are even working with external parties to test some product ideas that they believe would help the situation (though it is acknowledged that it's impossible to completely eliminate something so deeply ingrained in a society and culture). [1][2][3]
I think there's a marked difference in attitude between the companies towards a problem they both face and just because Facebook or Big Company X ignore stuff like this doesn't mean it's ok for everyone to ignore it. A change in attitude alone is progress on these fronts and we should hold more of these companies accountable so that they at least try to do something. It's not their responsibility to eliminate racism, but I believe it is their responsibility to try to understand how and why something like this manifests on their platform and try to take steps to curb it.
It's not an easy problem by any means, but try is the key word here. More companies taking well-intentioned steps like this leads to learnings that can be shared across our industry.
> AirBnB is a platform to connect vendors and buyers; they're closer to a measenger app than a hotel business.
Since they monetize by taking a share of transactions, they are a lot more like an involved participant in the transaction than an uninterested messenger.
It is an interesting question how far AirBNB could go to reduce racism on their platform.
An email reminder won't work. Someone who is uncomfortable having a particular ethnic group will not be swayed by an email reminder not to be racist.
Furthermore, unless racism is widespread in a particular area, it may not be possible to identify racists with statistical analysis and threaten racist hosts with banning. I can imagine this working in a relatively racist place where >5% of hosts refuse service for a particular (and relatively common) ethnicity but it's likely rare enough in most parts of the U.S. to avoid reliable detection without false positives.
Here is an idea: make it a standard practice for hosts to publish the a "we do not discriminate" clause in their listing. Maybe even provide a checkbox that adds that boilerplate.
I'll bet most people prefer to rent from hosts that say they don't discriminate.
Of course this won't solve the problem, but for hosts like the one our blogger found, it will at least tug on their conscience.
I would think twice to rent out my apartment to a guy and his friend ever. I'm a guy but when I see how other (especially unknown) guys treated my flat at a house party (compared to unknown girls) I decided that I don't want to allow guys I don't know beforehand. And I would do the same thing with rentals probably. It's just not worth the risk for that amount of money.
I do. A group of college guys cannot stay at my house. A group of girls could if they convinced us that they weren't going to party and trash the place.
When we first started renting it out we did have a bunch of girls throw a party and there was some damage. They lied about their intention to have a party.
The neighbor has been mad at us ever since.
Discriminate? Absolutely! No one can force me otherwise.
You have to trust the guest not to trash your house. Its very subjective. Rejecting someone means I lose money but its worth the risk.
Isn't the whole point to provide a hotel like service that is unregulated and ignores the law? I thought that is what disrupt meant. Why would they follow this specific law?
> Whether overtly stated or not, is it permissible for her to manage her risk in that way?
In California, if there is exactly one roomer in an owner-occupied, single-family home, its legal to discriminate on just about any basis -- but not to advertise a preference.
Except if there are also shared living spaces that will be used, in which case it is also legal to advertise a gender preference.
Yes, those are different words. Could you explain the legal principle, if there is one, that allows discrimination under one circumstance but not the other?
I mean, I can construct a hypothesis for the implicit decision rule (something like "rape is the only crime we care even minimally about trading off with our desire to End Discrimination") but I'm curious to see what a more generous person might conclude.
That's legislation, not a principle. If I ask "why is mortgage interest deductible", the principle is "because it encourages homeownership" - not the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
> That's legislation, not a principle. If I ask "why is mortgage interest deductible", the principle is "because it encourages homeownership" - not the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
Intentionally obtuse it is!
The reason it's permissible is because the exception is permitted under the Act. It's not predicated on some vague legal principal (nor, for that matter, is your example - that's a policy reason, not a legal one).
If you want the policy justification for permitting discrimination in one case but not the other, it's exactly what you outline above: there is a significant difference between renting out a portion of your own home, and renting a property exclusively for business purposes (i.e. real estate investment): https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-b...
Yeah, that "significant difference" is what I'm interested in. There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own, as long as you're "Mrs Murphy"ing it and your house doesn't have more than 4 rooms, after which point you can afford to hire a super to deal with the people the law previously allowed you to exclude.
Is that an accurate assessment of the logic, or is there a more charitable explanation?
The idea is that you get to choose your immediate neighbors (on any basis other than race, because race is always protected) if they share the same house with you. When you're running a business the tenants aren't your immediate neighbors, so you don't get to choose them based on certain protected criteria. You can only choose them based on their ability to pay, for instance, or any other criteria not deemed to be socially harmful.
> There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own
Seriously? If you think that renting to minorities or other protected classes means "putting your property & other tenants' lives at risk," then I just don't know what to tell you here.
There should be some sort of penalty for canceling/rejecting even if you had availability. Just like canceling an Uber. These cancellations ought to add up over time and reflect in the rating...
Additionally potential renters should be able to rate this initial experience as well, which should factor in the rating.
Dont think that will fix this problem but might curtail some of this behavior. I believe that technology and applied correctly has potential of changing behaviors (we have seen that in spades with AirBnB already).
This would probably be the most practical way of dealing with issues like this. A tag such as "[Unreliable] Host canceled prior availability dates 5 or more times." would make these assholes think several times before canceling on someone because of their skin color.
I also like the idea of showing someone's profile photo only after they book. Really, there is no reason for anyone to see my photos for short-term rentals.
Maybe the two could be tied together! That is, if I start canceling prior availability dates more than a couple times, AirBNB will stop showing me profile pictures of prospective tenants in advance.
False. If you're going to let your house out for short-term rentals on the market, you are obliged to follow the same rules regarding who you rent to as the hotels are.
If you don't want strangers in your house --- and I sure don't either --- don't try to capitalize on it on Airbnb.
In my town the permitting process for vacation rentals is quite different than hotels.
I have a very expensive permit ($2300 for the first year) and jumped through all the hoops. We pay occupancy tax, etc.
What makes it most different from a hotel is that we have to vet our guests. We won't take anyone off the street. This is perfectly reasonable and also different from a hotel.
I do hope that cities avoid passing laws around vacation rentals. The law is our town is an expensive illogical nightmare.
According to the information I got when I was hosting, Airbnb does punish hosts who reject a lot of guests by pushing the listing down in search results. The idea is that they want to show listings that are likely to convert to a match. Granted this might not help much if people of color only inquire occasionally, and everyone else is accepted
There is a small penalty of sorts. I booked an instant book Airbnb once where the host didn't like the length of my stay, and told me to cancel it. I told her to deal with it and Airbnb support ended up cancelling it for me. The dates of my stay were unavailable for others to book and an automated review was left on the listing saying that the host cancelled. I think it's a bummer I couldn't say what happened in that review though :(
Also to +1 the general topic from my (female) Asian perspective which is typically considered rather non-threatening, I have a pretty vanilla photo and I always bring up "nice" things when inquiring about airbnbs, if there are no instant book options. The profiling adds up to a serious load of crap especially when you get to a/b test a bit by asking someone else to also inquire about the place.
Ya it happened to me too. This is why stars on AirBnB doesn't mean everything. We have to check the host profile to see if there are too many "host cancelled" comments, and if it's the case it's a very bad host.
Seems simple enough for AirBnb to do. I'd bet a curious Airbnb data scientist has already done it. Do analysis of users' ethnicities/names/profile skin color/gender/ attire etc where booking cancelled for one person but allowed for another in same time period immediately after cancellation. Hosts with many such cancel/book patterns should be penalized. This would have flagged OP's friend doing second booking.
I am a black man, and I have dealt with this too. Here is few hacks I came up with.
1. In your profile picture wear one or more of the following fedora, suspenders, thick rimmed glasses, and a bow tie.
2. Position a white or (more ideally) an Asian woman center frame, and position yourself behind her left-center.
3. Have some animals in the picture. Cats are easy, ponies work best.
Try to add other things that make you less threatening, eg. babies and ice cream.
It is sad that these hacks are required, but as a fellow person of color who has to practice similar ones in other places, I appreciate them. (If I can suggest another one, it would be to have a picture of yourself in front of some building of obviously European architectural style such as an old library, etc. that looks "trustworthy". I have done this in the past.)
Related question, is there a way to report hosts to Airbnb for actions like this in any way? And have you tried doing that? I've never used the site, so I honestly have no idea.
As a fellow person of color, I have suspected such discrimination happening to me - however by and large I have been able to get an airbnb without much fanfare, which is likely to do with the positive reviews on my profile.
I'm torn between "I hate that the world requires this" and sheer awe at the approaches you've come up with and the experiments that must've been performed to get there.
I can imagine it's harder for a black person, but "looking less threatening" helps white people, too. Some (white) people have profile pictures where I'm sure I wouldn't host them.
Edit: It'd be interesting to compare profile pictures used in the original story.
I had a philosophy professor call words violent weapons two days ago, so the parent is not over exaggerating. FYI weapons are AK-47s in Africa, barrel bombs in Syria, missiles in Gaza, and what they store in guard posts in North Korean work camps.
I don't know how old you are, but discrimination by race used to be legal and much more prevalent. People still need the Fair Housing Act. Remember Donald Sterling? He's been rejecting tenants based on race before today's college kids were born.
Until recently, my picture was of me while running a marathon, since I thought that would be the most non-threatening photo available. However, I recently had a reservation (for a nearly 2-week-stay) cancelled by the host shortly after booking. I'm now suspicious enough of her justification that I've decided to remove the photo entirely and let my uneventful trip history speak for me.
As a very white dude (http://www.digitalprognosis.com/pics/supergotchi.png) this makes me angry and sad at the same time. I don't want this to happen to you, or me, or anyone. How do we "fix" this absolutely blatant, but also passive aggro racism? This is simply despicable that you have to seriously do those sorts of things because you were born with dark skin.
Though they can directly address this by taking photos out of the mix. Interesting question: Right or wrong to make decisions about trusting strangers based on how they look? I know my answer, what's HNs?
Yes, I know. We live in the real world. My issue isn't people making judgements, etc. It's that I choose not to willingly expose myself to (and support) a system that enables those judgements to negatively affect me. Instead, I choose to spend my money with a system (a hotel) which does not allow the prejudices of individuals to get in my way.
Airbnb has chosen it's system (and refuses to address the flaws inherent in that system), so I've chosen not to use it.
Not sure about right or wrong but the potential for abuse is too high, IMO.
There was a history of cab drivers in NYC refusing to pick up black customers - when Uber came to town one of the first questions was "can drivers see my photo", which they can't until they accept the ride IIRC. I don't see this situation as being too different.
> Though they can directly address this by taking photos out of the mix.
You could, with mixed results, I'm sure. There are many other factors to base a prejudice on; for example "does their name /sound/ black?"
Airbnb could also establish an anti-discrimination policy, which if you are caught in these types of incidents, you and your properties will be banned for some amount of time.
I've never used the service, so I can't say for sure, but I can think of at least a few good ways to accomplish this along with a team responsible for checking into flagged events and user reports.
As a 30-year old white guy, I had more success when I changed my profile picture to include me holding a baby (my cousin). Better to look like a family man than a partier.
I'm a brown man and having my white blond blue-eyed girlfriend in my Airbnb photo with me made all the difference. At least we've gotten past issues with miscegenation.
I don't know if you're familiar with Curb Your Enthusiasm, but Larry gives this exact theory to his friend Leon ("white people revere black people with glasses... no glasses, no job."). It's really quite amazing how closely it mirrors what you're describing!
A lot of black comedians have similar jokes about performing rituals to be accepted by whites. For example, Aries Spears says white women only date him after they hear him sing to 80s rock songs.
To those saying "that's bad, but what can Airbnb do?", I will repeat my comment: they can definitely end this problem if they wanted to, using the same techniques that the bloggers have used to uncover it.
If Airbnb sees a suspicious rejection of a person of color, Airbnb themselves could try rebooking it under a fake white profile. If it gets accepted, ban the host (or flag for further review, etc.)
It could be mostly automated and has no negative impact on good hosts.
No people should not be forced to let anyone in their homes. This is unreasonable.
Edit: Something else important here. We do not know that the reason he was denied was because he was black. You have reviews of yourself that you cannot see. Who's to say this isn't some race baiting article and this guy is a creep.
If Airbnb forces people to comply with lots of regulation then vastly more airbnb listings will disappear. It is not a good business choice. Rich people like offering their small homes but they will rigorously discriminate for various reasons. And they will avoid the regulatory pitfalls anyway.
Airbnb should not be forced to accept anyone on their platform. That is unreasonable as well.
By the way, the above is a great idea which would also not cause anyone to violate the rules of the platform by creating fake profiles, etc. Plus, it has zero effect on people who are not racists.
Rental property? Nope, there are laws that apply to hotels and normal rentals to avoid these situations. My dad doesn't get to deny access to his beach rental because a tenant is black.
You can't advertise that you discriminate but you generally can discriminate if (1) it's fewer than 4 units and the owner lives on premises, (2) it's a single family home owned by a person and rented w/o a broker, or (3) various other exceptions like religious organizations.
I suspect legally most airbnb landlords are in the clear.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do manage an apartment building. We don't discriminate; we just rent to the applications with the highest income and credit ratings.
I also suspect it would be in AirBnB's interest to weed this out, but since as a company they have no ethics, nothing will happen until there's a super embarrassing incident and it becomes news. eg Beyonce gets screwed by AirBnB and tweets it.
I'm not saying Airbnb discrimination is illegal, I'm saying that anti-racist restrictions on landlords are reasonable in principle, and therefore Airbnb should apply them.
As for the law, while you note some exceptions to the federal housing laws, states may supplement. For example it is illegal to discriminate in California even if you're renting a small home.
> I suspect legally most airbnb landlords are in the clear.
Watch it on this - despite the exceptions in the FHA, exceptions never apply to racial discrimination. IANAL, but the discrimination outlined in the article is unlawful, regardless of any exceptions. Plus, state law often supplements the FHA to close off many of the exceptions.
I agree and if the government was attempting to pass a law mandating this I would support you
But if AirBNB want to have a racism free site where only non-racists homeowners are allowed to post listing then it is perfectly with in the right to do so and I support AirBNB in banning any racist persons they find trying to use their site.
No one has a right to a AirBNB listing, and just as the homeowers can refuse service to anyone, so can airbnb
I didn't notice anyone suggest that hosts be forced.
Even if you are OK with people filtering occupants based on race, it's really poor UX to allow someone to book, and then have the host cancel with a bogus reason.
If there are hosts on AirBnB that aren't willing to rent to brown people, then there's no point showing those listings to me (a brown person).
They shouldn't be forced to state their preferences. They should have the power to deny for any reason if it is their private home they are renting out voluntarily.
You could also just offer black people the same level of trust you do anyone else when they share a negative experience they've had with a product or service...
Assuming they're being racist when we're not given all the details and facts of the situation just that he applied as a black guy and then again as a white (person) and suddenly the owner is racist? Yeah alright.
If the person is going to complain and pull the race card on a public forum in an attempt to disparage a largely successful company then they deserve to be scrutinized.
If he provided details saying he had similar reviews to his white friend that applied, and didn't message her TWO times without a response (making it seem like he REALLY wants the place for several days) then i'd be more like ok ya she's being racist kind of unreasonably so.
It strikes me that both "racism" and "anti-racism" live on an axis that is orthogonal to "reasonableness". Both views seem to commit the believer to strongly-held assumptions that cannot be falsified.
Filler words that missed the intended meaning. But you can attach fullheartedly to a few words and miss the entire point of what I said because your jimmies are so rustled by a little adage at the very end. Really shows your intelligence.
> No people should not be forced to let anyone in their homes. This is unreasonable.
The Fair Housing Act says otherwise (with respect to race and a few other categories), owner occupied rentals and small time single-family landlords excepted. No one is forcing you to rent out your property for profit, so if you don't want to let certain people in your house, don't rent it out on Airbnb.
There's a huge flaw in there. When I rent a unit, I will do some client research and to the extent I can I will block the rental based upon my findings. For example if I read their blog and they come across as a risky customer (a profile photo with machine guns, money, and drugs or postings showing a they have a lack of character). Now it could be they also happen to be black, but when they create a fake profile and then get accepted it does not mean I blocked them due to race.
At a minimum you would need to make sure you fake both profiles to ensure everything but skin color is the same.
Maybe I'm lacking imagination, but how do you account for the renter and Airbnb having vastly different sets of information to work from? Also your sample size would have to be huge to rule out coincidental outcomes, which I dare say would rarely be found for the average property.
For example my property gets about 100 customers per year. I'm guessing in the last 4 years I've had 3 black customers, all accepted by the way, but if I rejected all 3 can an algorithm reasonably rule out coincidence having such a low sample size? It just seems like it would be the kind of algo doomed to fuck it up.
It's like spam filtering. It may be hard to imagine but it can work. Algorithms look at multiple signals and produce a confidence score.
Consistently rejecting the one black customer you get every year would probably raise your score enough to prompt an investigation, and the outcome of that (like a fake white test booking) would give more confidence that it's not just coincidence.
The only thing wrong with this is that they knew ahead of time and changed their plans to cancel instead of cancelling/denying at the start.
It is people sharing their homes they should be able to deny anyone for any reason. It's not like their house is a public service that everyone needs.
I've used AirBnB several times. If you're there for any appreciable amount of time that isn't one night, these people will vet you and interview you beforehand and if they don't like you they will deny it. There is nothing wrong with that.
Who's to say this guy didn't have an iffy review that he doesn't know about?
If the hotel industry ever got its act together, they could really use this for a great marketing push.
Advertise the fact that AirBnB lets racial discrimination go unabated, unlike the hotel industry which is regulated for this. Younger, more liberal minded individuals will be less likely to use AirBnBs.
The sharing economy is based on trust. Unfortunately there is some cultural baggage around this, but it is no fault of Airbnb.
I reserve the right to discriminate who can stay at my house. Similarly, when I am traveling as a solo (white) dude, I expect that it is tough to find a place to stay on Airbnb.
If someone rejects me, no big deal. Sexist? Probably but I understand.
When I am traveling to a tech conference as a solo (white) dude, I expect that it is tough to find a place to stay on Airbnb.
If someone rejects me, no big deal. Sexist? Probably but I understand. It just means I need to either:
a) try harder to look trustworthy
b) just stay at a hotel
c) stay at an airbnb with guaranteed booking
African American male here, living in a major and supposedly progressive city (Washington). Just last night, I was trying to hail a cab. I was in a predominately black and poor neighborhood. Two obviously empty cabs saw me and kept driving. The third stopped for me, but made me tell him my destination before letting me in. After I told him, he said, "are you sure?".
Not a huge deal isolated, but this type of minor discrimination really gets old.
283 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 251 ms ] threadIf I can't choose who to allow into my home, I am not using AirBnB as a host. I am confident that almost everyone shares this sentiment.
Imagine if AirBnB required you to let anyone stay at your home. AirBnB wouldn't last another day.
I agree that you shouldn't make judgements based upon only the profile picture. On the other hand, if they post things I find unattractive (like making fun of people of another race), I'm definitely not going to let them in my home. (OP seems to be a victim of the former and I sympathize with him)
Hotels have their place, but for extended vacations, having an entire home at your disposal can really change the quality of the vacation. More space to spread out and relax, a kitchen so you can cook some meals, etc.
It would obviously be politically unpalatable, but in a way it might be better if say AirBNB implemented support for discrimination on their platform. It's obviously something that exists, so reifying it into the formal system should make it easier to optimize away.
If you want to participate in social media (which you have to, some people won't communicate any other way) you've got to accept that not everyone views your privacy the way you do.
And even of it did work, it wouldn't solve the issue since discrimination based on name can happen just as easily for people with obviously-black or obviously-Islamic names.
But if you get it right, is there any legitimate explanation for why statistical differences would exist? Or do you baseline against the entire AirBNB population (which may be biased in of itself)?
I'm not sure that it's fair to expect Airbnb to "fix" this. Why? Because if they prevent people from discriminating on the very evil dimensions of race, gender, sexual identification, religion, etc, then they will also prevent people from discriminating on the basis of reasonable factors like "5 guys from 19 to 21 from a fraternity".
Of course, discriminating in this way is already illegal for normal rentals, but when you have rentals of rooms in people's houses I believe it actually is legal for hosts to discriminate in some cases.
I really can't see how any sort of effective enforcement method could exist other than waiting for the racist assholes to die, sadly.
In California (the rules on this vary considerably by jurisdiction within the US), there is generally very little limit on discrimination by those renting out a room to a single roomer/boarder (but not if they are renting to multiple roomers/boarders), in an owner-occupied single family dwelling, though they generally can't advertise preference on any protected axis except gender, and only for that when there are shared living areas.
In a case like this, renting out the entire place when the terms of the rental is that the owner won't be there, this exception wouldn't seem to apply, though Idaho may have different rules (I'm having more trouble quickly finding a good description of Idaho's rules.)
Good luck, there's not much for rental regulations in the state of Idaho, and literally nothing for short-term rentals. It would come down to whether renting a property on AirBnB constitutes a lessor/lessee relationship, in which case the Fair Housing Act automatically kicks in.
Good thing this home is in Idaho...
Serious (offtopic) metaquestion: why is the postmodern view that all people, including violent criminals, are victims/products of their environment, but racists are uniquely and irredeemably evil to their core?
Usually it's more about a form of unstable and contextual xenophobia.
But it's not just against people. Also about all living things, object, behavior, events...
People are label racists like it's a deep nature, while it's most likely a small symptom of poor education + a twisted defensive reaction that is bigger than that, and is not particularly linked to race.
Well, I don't agree that that is the postmodern view, unless you define "postmodern" to specifically mean that view so that it is tautologically true; particularly, I don't believe that its all that common for any person (regardless of whether the label "postmodern" applies) to hold simultaneously to both of those beliefs. They may both be beliefs that are visible in some segment of the population, and there may be some overlap, but I don't think there is much correlation.
But, in any case, even if they were commonly held together, there is nothing inconsistent in believing that all beliefs and behavior patterns are products of the interaction of the individual with the external environment, and believing that there are certain beliefs and behavior patterns that, once established, are not correctable through any change in the environment that other people can effect (even if the same behaviors/beliefs may be made less likely to manifest in those who have not already manifested them), such that those behaviors/beliefs only go away when the people holding them die.
Hence why we don't expect to successfully re-educate them, and will have to outlive them instead.
But I suspect that the nature of postmodernism means we won't really be able to resolve what views are and aren't consistent with it to any objectively satisfying degree ;-)
Please end racism.
Regards, A dissatisified customer.
Please stop providing hosts with information that basically can only be used for discriminatory purposes against protected classes.
Regards, A dissatisfied customer
There are valid reasons to want to know what somebody looks like before allowing them into your home.
I really do not want to do business with someone who's a racist even though I'm white. I don't want to do business with misgynists even though I'm not a woman. So give these hosts a permanent badge of honor for all guests to see, rather than sweeping the problem under the carpet in a way that effectively allows these cranky hosts to discriminate almost anonymously and only incidently once an implicit agreement to rent has been made (even if it's just an inquiry).
Yeah, Trump is certainly realizing the full consequence of his beliefs.
Trump is overwhelmingly perceived as a con artist who cons only the most magnificently bored and/or stupid people of the earth. And not always a successful one either or he wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy, he could have just conned another handful of investors. Clearly some of his messes were too obvious for even the dumbest rich people of the earth to fall for.
And note that this thing hasn't really played itself out fully yet, so we'll just have to see. For all we know, he may be declaring bankruptcy again to get out of candidacy debt.
Why not just kick them off the platform? If they don't approve of a behavior, and want it to stop, why should they continue working with people who they know for a fact are engaging in that behavior?
Maybe it's a bad idea and it just encourages a sort of tribalism where the bigots do business with each other and as a social we really should say, no you can't use public goods like AirBnB. Yes it's a private company, however it is also acting like a bridge to what has historically been a place of public accommodation: hotels.
And AirBnB can decide who gets to use their service.
Dear Montgomery city bus system,
Please end racism.
Regards, A dissatisfied customer.
Discriminating by age could be considered reasonable (don't want a large group of college students) and I see valid reasons to discriminate by gender (Women may not want to book male guests if they're sharing the same space and vice-versa)...
You'd still run into the problem of real-life racists (a problem for minorities everywhere, all the time)... but such a policy would likely eliminate many racists from the site through the frustration of not being able to discriminate.
I wouldn't even rule it out entirely, you'd just need references (a decent rating).
The same age group is faced with similar problems renting apartments because they often lack credit ratings and previous references.
The US has a very long history of racism against minorities. It's been difficult to get a strong system in place to combat racism. Ageism against young people has a built in correction system called aging.
Well, for one thing, its not generally expressly prohibited by law.
In situations where you're renting a bed or a room in a shared common space — I don't think it's unreasonable to be more selective about gender. Is it discriminatory for colleges to not group men/women together in dorm room?
Again, look at the severity disparity here:
would it be socially acceptable for a woman to say "I don't want a male roommate?"
would it be socially acceptable for a white person to say "I don't want a black roommate?"
No, but that's not relevant. The correct analogy would be "Is it discriminatory for colleges to refuse residence to one gender?" That said, I respect the right of anyone to choose who they let into their home, even if I might disagree with the criteria.
For example: If I'm American, I might donate to a service that helps American homeless, and would not have donated otherwise if the service was global.
Similarly, If I'm black, I might donate to a service that only helps blacks and would not have donated otherwise. If I'm Caucasian and feel a strong sense of community for my heritage I might do the same, etc.
People feel more sympathy to those they can relate with -- I don't think that will change for many years.
Remember, you're effectively inviting over people into your home. Your safe space. Your nest. It seems really, really weird that somebody would do that without at least knowing what the person looks like.
And that's before you even get into the security issues of having to blindly trust AirBNB (or somebody claiming to be related to AirBNB) that this rando is authorized.
And if you are renting your home with AirBNB and _don't_ have some type of commercial rental insurance or coverage through your main policy you are skating on very thin ice. Even the nicest looking person in the world could ruin your place, or at the very least hurt themselves seriously in your home and bankrupt you with a massive liability lawsuit. If you aren't ready to be a landlord and abide by their rules, regulations, etc. then don't rent out with AirBNB.
Why? Says who? You're coming up with this strict concept of what AirBnB must be, but I see no reason to agree with you. It's as absurd as saying "if you aren't comfortable giving a ride to a hitchhiker with a rifle on his back and a blood-stained shirt, then don't give a ride to any hitchhiker."
I also rent my home out on VRBO, a competing platform. It is very similar to Airbnb.
This is a transaction based on trust. Random people cannot stay at my house. They need reviews and need to be properly vetted.
College guys looking to party can go to a hotel instead.
I do have regulations in my town, and they are a nightmare. The regulations only benefit hotels by discouraging people from renting out their houses or rooms.
If Airbnb required and stored pictures they could be used to identify them in case they trash the house.
I can't think of anything else the property owners would claim to use the profile pictures for.
I admit that I'm not familiar with the booking process on AirBNB, but I'd be really surprised to hear that a booking, once completed, can't be cancelled. Wouldn't the same people cancelling reservations now just cancel them post-booking instead?
Even if they don't care about people being discriminated against they could at least think about the loss of potential customers.
(granted, this can still happen, legitimately, even in a post-booking display mode.. but post-booking cancellations could be a signal for flakiness and, overall, a reason to put hosts on notice that they need to shape up)
Its perfectly fair to stop using AirBnB if you are concerned about this until and unless they fix it, independently of whether you "expect" them to fix it, when there are alternative methods of booking lodging where this problem is, at a minimum, less of an issue.
This list would be a good start for AirBNB.
Yes, but it looks like owner-occupied homes that are renting out a bedroom on AirBnB are exempt[1] from those discrimination laws. Paraphrase of law: "other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"
Basically, it is legal for homeowners to discriminate on race for their personal dwelling. The concept appears to be related to the "roommate wanted" being exempted from the FHA Fair Housing Act.[2]
There may be a grey area regarding a larger 6-bedroom home that the owner occupies but is renting out for a week while he's out of town. The owner doesn't have to physically share the space simultaneously with the renter. I can't tell if anti-discrimination laws applies to that situation.
[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
[2]https://blog.splitwise.com/2012/02/07/court-allows-discrimin...
There is a big difference between "not a violation of federal law" and "legal". Many states have anti-discrimination laws with broader scope than the Federal Fair Housing Act.
That's true but I can't think of one example of a state having tougher discrimination laws than the Federal code in regards to a homeowner's personal dwelling.
1. The federal exemption is a blanket one from the anti-discrimination rules, California's allows most discrimination but still limits advertising and still prohibits discrimination on medical condition or age (over 40)
2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.
The webpage (you cited previously) from the California Department of Consumer Affairs that mentions "medical" and "age" doesn't look to be correct.
For reference, the source laws it cites are the following:
(51) California's Unruh Civil Rights Act: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
(51.2) (special case for senior citizens housing): http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
Government Code Section 12927(a)(2)(A): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...
Government Code Section 12955(c): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...
Reading the actual laws doesn't find any exceptions to the exemptions for roommates and homeowners renting out a private room. The "medical condition" and "age" (along with "gender", "race", etc) are all part of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The only age-specific laws (51.2) was discrimination against younger people being acceptable so as to maintain the housing for senior citizens.
In any case, it looks like the exemption for roommates based on it not being a "business". The law in (51) is directed at business establishments and not roommates/homeowners sharing a house/apartment. Based on a plain reading of the previous 4 cites, an 18-year-old girl in California can refuse to share accommodations with a 70-year-old asthma sufferer with a noisy oxygen tank.
>2. the federal exception applies up to 5 rooms for rent, California's applies only when the owner is renting to a single roomer or boarder.
Ok got it. But I wasn't using "tougher discrimination" in the sense that one state allows 1 room (or some other threshold number) instead of 5. Instead, I meant "tougher" as in certain state says you can't discriminate on race for the private bedroom in your house -- whereas FHA says you can.
Exemptions to federal statues may not apply in this case if the owner is renting out >4 bedrooms.
The owner-occupied housing exemption only applies to buildings with 4 or fewer units.
The single family home exemption may still apply, but if you're rending out all the bedrooms, it's probably gray enough that you should avoid overt racial discrimination.
But you really ought to avoid overt racial discrimination in any case...
Tons and tons of places on AirBnB are not residences but full-time hotels. This is why the site is so hated by established interest groups. Tons of entrepreneurs are out there buying up or renting long-term housing and converting it into short-term rentals, all while avoiding the fees and regulations that apply to traditional hotel businesses.
"5 guys from 19 to 21 from a fraternity" isn't a protected class under US law.
AirBNB and their lawyers believe that US Law does in fact apply. They note explicitly though that there are certain classes of exceptions.
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/898/ada-and-fha-complian...
That depends on local law; in California, it doesn't if you have exactly 1 roomer in a single-family, owner-occupied home. (There are still restrictions on advertising preferences, except gender, and then only when there are shared living spaces.)
We humans can be terrible :(.
[1] Plus, I caught myself doing the exact thing I was lamenting. (Not "racism" per se, but still "us-vs-them".)
Some blogging aspires to be the kind of neutral, third-party journalism to which that standard applies, but this kind of sharing of one's personal experience is not that kind of blogging.
It's more like a personal version of an institutional press release, which might be the trigger and starting point for a journalistic story, but isn't one itself.
I realize that nowadays it's not as clear cut when you're reading an op-ed and when you're reading a piece of news, and sometimes it seems like authors try to blur the lines, but the distinction exists for a reason. The author of the piece did not really seem to try to make this anything more than "this is my story", which should set the tone and understanding of the writing he's about to present.
However, I'm really not sure that there is a solution to this. People in general are racist/biased/sexist/thing-ist, all over the world. Trying to regulate that fact doesn't make sense (how would you even police that?), but perhaps confronting her about it could help. If you sent her your blog post, detailing the steps that you took, she could come around and tell you a more reasonable explanation, like that her schedule is unstable and she had lots of other offers.
The more overt racists can be dealt with by doing simple analysis of denied/cancelled bookings and banning them.
I'm guessing AirBnB will eventually have to implement one or both of these approaches to avoid discrimination lawsuits.
We made a lot of progress on this a few decades ago with fair housing laws. It wasn't instant or perfect, but it absolutely was policeable. You can't police how people feel, but you can, empirically, police whether people get to act on their feelings to deny other people civil rights.
Of course, you need a working regulatory framework for such policing to be able to have an effect.
They could even automate it with a bot.
It'd be better to rely on statistics: if a host systematically rejects some "protected class", THEN you can accuse them of unjust discrimination.
(Also it should be noted, "looked untrustworthy" can be code for racism.)
People using Airbnb to rent out their property are effectively breaking the laws and due to loopholes in regulations cannot be held responsible. It's a lot more than just social rules.
[1] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/discrimination-in-...
Also, the racist does not use this property as a primary residence. It's one among many vacation rentals she owns so she has no protections under the law.
Extremely cheap energy (fusion power maybe?) might solve it for good by alleviating survival worries in the human psyche, no amount of regulation or rules can.
Edit: resource scarcity from the perspective of the human psyche, which affects worries about survival. The unconscious worries about there not being enough stuff, so that you might as well divide it up with your group.
Scarcity -> Identify a vulnerable out group -> Attack out group and steal their hunting grounds
Our brain stems don't know what millennium they are in.
I was talking about the unconscious worry about resources and survival, not the rational economic kind.
It's not a "I'm going to reserve my airbnb for my racial group only!" it's: "I'm uncomfortable letting someone of another race rent my house, because I am not familiar enough with their culture to know if they're going to wreck my house or not."
Racism & sexism are bad business practices. *-ists have to operate in a smaller labor or customer pool in order to operate. The AirBnB operator lost 30 minutes of organization in this blog, so you're either wasting time or you end hiring a lower-quality member of your own racial group.
I'll make the claim that: as long as resource scarcity exists, there is an economic pressure to be less racist.
I was talking in the terms of the human unconscious - the knowledge reaffirmed your entire life, and for as long as humans existed that stuff is scarce. And if stuff is scarce and that affects your survival - you might as well secure it for yourself and your group (the reason being that your immediate group is more likelly to support you, e.g arabs got a proverb about this - me against my brother, me and my brother against the men of our village, our village against another village, and so on).
If resource scarcity could be alleviated through cheap energy, that might modify this base human survival mechanism which is a reason for in-groups/out-groups.
I don't believe 'racism' in the traditional sense (especially institutional racism) is inevitable at all. Sure you can change the argument and argue about a different thing, but we are specifically talking about race here.
Not being able to solve the problem 100% doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do anything.
(Now, maybe they have done a bunch of stuff, I don't know, but it seems like there's still a problem)
There's plenty Airbnb can do to ensure their hosts aren't racists. They have complete oversight of the booking process. They can detect racist rejection patterns and investigate.
Airbnb owns 0% of the houses put up for rent on their platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Marketplace
I think there's a marked difference in attitude between the companies towards a problem they both face and just because Facebook or Big Company X ignore stuff like this doesn't mean it's ok for everyone to ignore it. A change in attitude alone is progress on these fronts and we should hold more of these companies accountable so that they at least try to do something. It's not their responsibility to eliminate racism, but I believe it is their responsibility to try to understand how and why something like this manifests on their platform and try to take steps to curb it.
It's not an easy problem by any means, but try is the key word here. More companies taking well-intentioned steps like this leads to learnings that can be shared across our industry.
[1] https://blog.nextdoor.com/2016/01/27/our-commitment-to-end-r...
[2] https://blog.nextdoor.com/2016/04/12/improvements-to-how-our...
[3] https://blog.nextdoor.com/2016/04/26/continued-improvements-...
Since they monetize by taking a share of transactions, they are a lot more like an involved participant in the transaction than an uninterested messenger.
Using some simple logic, it would be quite easy to detect signs of racial bias during booking.
Ending racism is a complex and perhaps ultimately unsolvable problem, but mitigating it's effects is something we can and should do.
An email reminder won't work. Someone who is uncomfortable having a particular ethnic group will not be swayed by an email reminder not to be racist.
Furthermore, unless racism is widespread in a particular area, it may not be possible to identify racists with statistical analysis and threaten racist hosts with banning. I can imagine this working in a relatively racist place where >5% of hosts refuse service for a particular (and relatively common) ethnicity but it's likely rare enough in most parts of the U.S. to avoid reliable detection without false positives.
I'll bet most people prefer to rent from hosts that say they don't discriminate.
Of course this won't solve the problem, but for hosts like the one our blogger found, it will at least tug on their conscience.
When we first started renting it out we did have a bunch of girls throw a party and there was some damage. They lied about their intention to have a party.
The neighbor has been mad at us ever since.
Discriminate? Absolutely! No one can force me otherwise.
You have to trust the guest not to trash your house. Its very subjective. Rejecting someone means I lose money but its worth the risk.
In California, if there is exactly one roomer in an owner-occupied, single-family home, its legal to discriminate on just about any basis -- but not to advertise a preference.
Except if there are also shared living spaces that will be used, in which case it is also legal to advertise a gender preference.
See, "Limited exceptions for single rooms and roommates", at http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/discriminati...
In case you're not being obtuse, the Fair Housing Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act
It applies to rentals of full properties, but not to roommates or (some) owner occupied properties.
Intentionally obtuse it is!
The reason it's permissible is because the exception is permitted under the Act. It's not predicated on some vague legal principal (nor, for that matter, is your example - that's a policy reason, not a legal one).
If you want the policy justification for permitting discrimination in one case but not the other, it's exactly what you outline above: there is a significant difference between renting out a portion of your own home, and renting a property exclusively for business purposes (i.e. real estate investment): https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-b...
Is that an accurate assessment of the logic, or is there a more charitable explanation?
> There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own
Seriously? If you think that renting to minorities or other protected classes means "putting your property & other tenants' lives at risk," then I just don't know what to tell you here.
Additionally potential renters should be able to rate this initial experience as well, which should factor in the rating.
Dont think that will fix this problem but might curtail some of this behavior. I believe that technology and applied correctly has potential of changing behaviors (we have seen that in spades with AirBnB already).
I also like the idea of showing someone's profile photo only after they book. Really, there is no reason for anyone to see my photos for short-term rentals.
Maybe the two could be tied together! That is, if I start canceling prior availability dates more than a couple times, AirBNB will stop showing me profile pictures of prospective tenants in advance.
Yes, you have to make effort to show that you are not going to trash my house. Its not a hotel.
If you don't want strangers in your house --- and I sure don't either --- don't try to capitalize on it on Airbnb.
I have a very expensive permit ($2300 for the first year) and jumped through all the hoops. We pay occupancy tax, etc.
What makes it most different from a hotel is that we have to vet our guests. We won't take anyone off the street. This is perfectly reasonable and also different from a hotel.
I do hope that cities avoid passing laws around vacation rentals. The law is our town is an expensive illogical nightmare.
Also to +1 the general topic from my (female) Asian perspective which is typically considered rather non-threatening, I have a pretty vanilla photo and I always bring up "nice" things when inquiring about airbnbs, if there are no instant book options. The profiling adds up to a serious load of crap especially when you get to a/b test a bit by asking someone else to also inquire about the place.
1. In your profile picture wear one or more of the following fedora, suspenders, thick rimmed glasses, and a bow tie. 2. Position a white or (more ideally) an Asian woman center frame, and position yourself behind her left-center. 3. Have some animals in the picture. Cats are easy, ponies work best.
Try to add other things that make you less threatening, eg. babies and ice cream.
Related question, is there a way to report hosts to Airbnb for actions like this in any way? And have you tried doing that? I've never used the site, so I honestly have no idea.
Edit: It'd be interesting to compare profile pictures used in the original story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act
I stopped using Airbnb wholesale after experiencing very similar things to what the OP has described in this article.
Plus, hotels are just better.
Though they can directly address this by taking photos out of the mix. Interesting question: Right or wrong to make decisions about trusting strangers based on how they look? I know my answer, what's HNs?
Airbnb has chosen it's system (and refuses to address the flaws inherent in that system), so I've chosen not to use it.
There was a history of cab drivers in NYC refusing to pick up black customers - when Uber came to town one of the first questions was "can drivers see my photo", which they can't until they accept the ride IIRC. I don't see this situation as being too different.
You could, with mixed results, I'm sure. There are many other factors to base a prejudice on; for example "does their name /sound/ black?"
Airbnb could also establish an anti-discrimination policy, which if you are caught in these types of incidents, you and your properties will be banned for some amount of time.
I've never used the service, so I can't say for sure, but I can think of at least a few good ways to accomplish this along with a team responsible for checking into flagged events and user reports.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/indian-grandfather...
I don't know if you're familiar with Curb Your Enthusiasm, but Larry gives this exact theory to his friend Leon ("white people revere black people with glasses... no glasses, no job."). It's really quite amazing how closely it mirrors what you're describing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ECj4OcCC0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-4e4PWGY8
Not a new concept to people of color. Despite the jokes, it's depressing.
Why? What's so special about them?
Uber on the other hand may actually reduce profiling . You don't have the fear of a driver ripping you off
If Airbnb sees a suspicious rejection of a person of color, Airbnb themselves could try rebooking it under a fake white profile. If it gets accepted, ban the host (or flag for further review, etc.)
It could be mostly automated and has no negative impact on good hosts.
Edit: Something else important here. We do not know that the reason he was denied was because he was black. You have reviews of yourself that you cannot see. Who's to say this isn't some race baiting article and this guy is a creep.
That cuts both ways. They're free to reject whoever they want and AirBnB should be free to reject them from listing their properties.
By the way, the above is a great idea which would also not cause anyone to violate the rules of the platform by creating fake profiles, etc. Plus, it has zero effect on people who are not racists.
This would be an issue, if people were forced to rent out their homes on AirBnB.
Rental property? Nope, there are laws that apply to hotels and normal rentals to avoid these situations. My dad doesn't get to deny access to his beach rental because a tenant is black.
This mirrors U.S. housing law. You don't have to rent your place out, but if you do you can't discriminate based on race.
You can't advertise that you discriminate but you generally can discriminate if (1) it's fewer than 4 units and the owner lives on premises, (2) it's a single family home owned by a person and rented w/o a broker, or (3) various other exceptions like religious organizations.
I suspect legally most airbnb landlords are in the clear.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do manage an apartment building. We don't discriminate; we just rent to the applications with the highest income and credit ratings.
I also suspect it would be in AirBnB's interest to weed this out, but since as a company they have no ethics, nothing will happen until there's a super embarrassing incident and it becomes news. eg Beyonce gets screwed by AirBnB and tweets it.
As for the law, while you note some exceptions to the federal housing laws, states may supplement. For example it is illegal to discriminate in California even if you're renting a small home.
Watch it on this - despite the exceptions in the FHA, exceptions never apply to racial discrimination. IANAL, but the discrimination outlined in the article is unlawful, regardless of any exceptions. Plus, state law often supplements the FHA to close off many of the exceptions.
But if AirBNB want to have a racism free site where only non-racists homeowners are allowed to post listing then it is perfectly with in the right to do so and I support AirBNB in banning any racist persons they find trying to use their site.
No one has a right to a AirBNB listing, and just as the homeowers can refuse service to anyone, so can airbnb
The government already passed the law mandating this, way back in 1968: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act
Yes, it applies to Airbnb: https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/898/ada-and-fha-complian...
Even if you are OK with people filtering occupants based on race, it's really poor UX to allow someone to book, and then have the host cancel with a bogus reason.
If there are hosts on AirBnB that aren't willing to rent to brown people, then there's no point showing those listings to me (a brown person).
Knew this would be in here somewhere.
You could also just offer black people the same level of trust you do anyone else when they share a negative experience they've had with a product or service...
If the person is going to complain and pull the race card on a public forum in an attempt to disparage a largely successful company then they deserve to be scrutinized.
If he provided details saying he had similar reviews to his white friend that applied, and didn't message her TWO times without a response (making it seem like he REALLY wants the place for several days) then i'd be more like ok ya she's being racist kind of unreasonably so.
As opposed to reasonable racism? I think we're done here.
It strikes me that both "racism" and "anti-racism" live on an axis that is orthogonal to "reasonableness". Both views seem to commit the believer to strongly-held assumptions that cannot be falsified.
$36k fine because a landlord "preferred to rent to adults".
The Fair Housing Act says otherwise (with respect to race and a few other categories), owner occupied rentals and small time single-family landlords excepted. No one is forcing you to rent out your property for profit, so if you don't want to let certain people in your house, don't rent it out on Airbnb.
At a minimum you would need to make sure you fake both profiles to ensure everything but skin color is the same.
Which would be utterly obvious and ineffective. Instead, they could look for discriminatory rejection patterns.
Maybe I'm lacking imagination, but how do you account for the renter and Airbnb having vastly different sets of information to work from? Also your sample size would have to be huge to rule out coincidental outcomes, which I dare say would rarely be found for the average property.
For example my property gets about 100 customers per year. I'm guessing in the last 4 years I've had 3 black customers, all accepted by the way, but if I rejected all 3 can an algorithm reasonably rule out coincidence having such a low sample size? It just seems like it would be the kind of algo doomed to fuck it up.
Consistently rejecting the one black customer you get every year would probably raise your score enough to prompt an investigation, and the outcome of that (like a fake white test booking) would give more confidence that it's not just coincidence.
It is people sharing their homes they should be able to deny anyone for any reason. It's not like their house is a public service that everyone needs.
I've used AirBnB several times. If you're there for any appreciable amount of time that isn't one night, these people will vet you and interview you beforehand and if they don't like you they will deny it. There is nothing wrong with that.
Who's to say this guy didn't have an iffy review that he doesn't know about?
Advertise the fact that AirBnB lets racial discrimination go unabated, unlike the hotel industry which is regulated for this. Younger, more liberal minded individuals will be less likely to use AirBnBs.
If someone rejects me, no big deal. Sexist? Probably but I understand.
If someone rejects me, no big deal. Sexist? Probably but I understand. It just means I need to either: a) try harder to look trustworthy b) just stay at a hotel c) stay at an airbnb with guaranteed booking
Not a huge deal isolated, but this type of minor discrimination really gets old.