This was actually my immediate reaction - so AirBNB because of it's size is going to attract some racist hosts because their demographic is "anyone with a room".
If you create a site where the intended demographic is "anyone with a room that is pro-inclusivity", then surely you could create a community around people who self-select as not perpetuating racism/transphobia/general bigotry.
I dont see how this is related to AirBnB. They may are a good case to study this phenomen but in reality it is the society that creates this fears.
Ironically it isnt to far off ether. Where i live the majority of black youth have a bigger criminal history than their white peers. Sure this again fully depends on how the society treats them.
Thats my point, what should they do? They created a community run platform, everything they would do now would just make the users angry. Also seriously, what should they do? They cant forbid people to decline users, nobody would use such a platform.
What can they do about it, though? AirBnB doesn't own the property being rented. If it did, an anti-discrimination policy would be easier to enforce. AirBnB is essentially a jazzed-up listing service, not an actual hotelier, that is gouging out a buck while revealing the worst of our society.
>they can easily enforce non-discrimination on their hosts
From reading this article, it sounds like they actually can't. Ultimately, they have to be willing to banish hosts who discriminate, which diminishes their platform.
They could try, if they want to sink their business. Telling people they no longer control who stays in their home does not seem like a smart move -- at least for actual home-sharers, not illegal hotel operators. And AirBnB doesn't want to really recognize the hotel operators, do they?
I doubt they would sink their business. Airbnb is no longer a startup that is given free licence to go against established laws. Compliance at this stage will benefit their business.
AirBnB isn't discriminating. Private home owners are choosing to share their homes. For anti discrimination laws to apply, AirBnB would have to admit that many of their "sharing" people are just illicit hotels skirting the law.
But how and why? Will you seriously take people away the choice who they want to host? How will you enforce this? Someone who declines blacks 5 times gets banned?
Against discrimination i assume. But not against people who dont want to share their privates with others because of prejudices. Honestly i cant see this as discrimination, thats real issues our society faces, but its more stupidity and fear based on shitty media than anything else, especially discrimination.
Apparently the american law doesn't require nondiscrimination at what is listed in most airbnb listings as pointed out elsewhere [not the case elsewhere]. Ergo, airbnb cannot stop hosts from discriminating in most US listings. Therefore, they should have never claim that they are against discrimination. Otherwise, they would have to prove it with actions.
I do see some difference. I might agree that there should be a difference between a person who owns a property primarily for their own use and rents on Airbnb and someone who owns a property primarily for renting on Airbnb. One is more commercial, and one is more personal.
But Airbnb hosts seem to be taking advantage of legal grey areas. Airbnb is directly competing with the hotel industry, but they are claiming those industry regulations don't apply to them. I'm not saying that they are necessarily doing anything illegal or definitely acting unethically. But I do think that they are operating in some legal grey areas, so it's not overreaching to try to increase or change how regulations apply to them.
I agree with you as a normal person, but let's put it in the perspective of the company. That is a move that might hurt them without bringing any (monetary) benefit, strict rules like that might mean that instead the user might try other services or avoid renting out completely. While I do not condone the discrimination I can understand that some people might still want to be able to chose who gets in their house and putting rules around that might scare away a lot of people. I do not think this is a problem of AirBnB and I do not think that they will implement rules, what they might do is try to teach more the benefits of cultural diversity.
I think the bigger problem is enforcement. If someone says "I'm not accepting your request because you're X" that's easy to detect and punish.
But if it's more subtle and no explicit reason, it's going to be way harder to detect and adds a lot of judgement calls to the mix.. which puts it up the whims of whoever is doing support at that moment.
Those discrimination laws don't apply to hosts' private homes or bedrooms.[1] Paraphrase of law: "All persons shall be entitled ..., and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,..., without discrimination ... other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"
If a homeowner has a spare bedroom across the hall from her 13-year-old son's room, and doesn't want to rent to transgender, black, or 65-year-old guests, it is legal for her to discriminate on those attributes.
On the other hand, if the AirBnb host is renting out a non-owner-occupied beach house, the discrimination laws would apply.
Here in America, we have the 4th Amendment. Don't like it? Leave.
Airbnb is not responsible for this, nor is doing anything wrong. If I do not want somebody in my private home, they will not step a foot in my private home. In fact, if they do, I have the right to take defensive action, including the use of lethal force when necessary. Don't like it? Leave.
But the problem is Airbnb is blurring the line between personal and business use of the home. You shouldn't able to claim all the the legal benefits of a non-commercial/personal property if you are using it for a business. I'd think it would be reasonable if some anti-discrimination laws for businesses were changed or viewed as applying to Airbnb hosts. You don't need to advertise your personal home on Airbnb.
Your private residence is always your private residence. That never changes. And Airbnb is not a public offering. It is on an offer-acceptance basis. Basic contract law. I can reject a contract for any reason I please and there is not a thing you can do about it.
Well "basic law" in many jurisdictions make it illegal to rent your home out for less than x number of days. So if they want to scream what is legal in one case then why not the other case? I wouldn't want anyone to be running what basically is a hotel right next to me.
>Well, they should, and if airbnb is not willing to comply,
You seem to be confused. The cite I provided (42 U.S. Code § 2000a) is the actual anti-discrimination law and the law's text is explicitly written to exclude residences such as personal homes. You can't make AirBnB "comply" with a law that doesn't exist for homeowners and their spare bedrooms.
This is true, and is shameful shortcoming in the law, a throwback to a less enlightened time, when racism was still a core value in a large segment of American society.
The part about a host not allowing a trans person isn't related to AirBnB either, it's one host's choice and there's nothing wrong with rejecting a renter for any reason. I've slept in hostels, they discriminate on age (nobody over 35 was allowed). There's probably plenty of hosts that won't accept men, or couples, or underage people, or people of a different faith.
That was the worst about the article anyway, its a mum with a 13yo boy in puperty, it should be understandable that she does not want "special situations" IN HER HOME. That is nobodies business.
SJW outrage articles like these hopefully will die out as gawker-style journalism does. I don't see how this adds anything to any conversation other than the demographic that travels in the US is primarily white as the US itself is 77% white. I think there will always be perceived racism or other "isms." Playing up edge cases for ad imperssions seems questionable to me. There are 2 million listings on Airbnb, its clear edge cases will always be there.
Also, it would be trivial to use this brand of multiculturalism to justify open racism. Why should a Chinese person in Chinatown who doesn't speak English allow a white family to stay in their property? Or allowing a Russian to deny a Ukranian? Or allowing a black family who have been victimized by the police to allow a family containing police officers.
I imagine most SJW's would agree for "special exemptions" for these cases. The idea that no one should be turned down is asinine. These are people's homes and by the 4th Amendment the government can't shove people in them. Want to stay somewhere where they don't have these issues? Then call a hotel.
Did you read through the article? It seems they're reporting on something airbnb users, the company, and academic researchers have recognized as a problem and what's being done about it, including a few startups.
Not to mention the whole socially pertinent(Trump???) legacy of entrenched discrimination in the U.S.
I'm not sure if the original story is racism. If I (white) am staying in a Chinese apartment house that otherwise only has Chinese tenants then the likelihood that someone recognizes me as a non-tenant is 100%.
Therefore, the likelihood that someone reports me as a stranger is far greater than if I were Chinese.
In other words, I'd not be surprised if someone reported me (white) while staying in a (hypothetical) Chinese AirBnB.
As far as "recognizing the problem" goes: You pretty much have to acknowledge a "problem" if something like this comes up or you'll be harassed on the Internet.
These are not the droids you are looking for. The monopolies of SV do not exist in vacuum, they should adhere to the laws that the broader society has decided.
I read the article, am non-white (because that is super important apparently, specially to white libtards who choose to be offended on my behalf), and completely agree with him.
Also, if my neighbor saw a bunch of strangers in my house when I was away, I would want them to call the police. The problem in that particular case is not that they called the police but that the neighbours were not notified about unexpected strangers staying in the neighborhood.
If someone doesn't want me (a brown male) to stay in their house, I would absolutely like to know and would prefer to have a filter to easily find only the places that accept someone like me. The problem is not discrimination. The problem is anti-discrimination bullshit the company has to go through if they provided such a filter to make lives easy for everyone.
Proof: out of 6,000+ availability request made (without checking actual availability which is known, but sending a request anyway) 50% of "white sounding names" were accepted, while only 42% of "black sounding names" where accepted.
That's like 8%!!! That means people are racist!
Or it means that the randomness of actually available houses was skewed where "black sounding names" were assigned more unavailable houses.
I wonder how many times they tried this experiment to get the result they were looking for.
But posts about Airbnb being banned or being able to have bans rescinded are fair game? Coverage of tech companies shouldn't be restricted to only a certain narrative.
The article makes a good case for a problem that clearly demands fixing. It's true however that the author chose a clickbaity style and title , instead of adding a paragraph about the obvious thing that can fix it (it doesn't sound that hard, obviously).
I was arguing with a friend that convicted felons shouldn't be discriminated against in job searches, or they will never become upstanding members of society. Then later I was thinking about how someday I'm going to rent out my apartment. And if I do a background check on a tenant, and it turns out they are a convicted felon, I honestly couldn't let them rent the apartment because it's too risky. I feel bad about it, but when it comes to risking my own assets, I can't do it!
This is why the government steps in and creates fairness laws (though not for felons). It's entirely plausible that an AirBnB renter unfamiliar with evaluating evidence might just look up US crime stats and come to an unfair conclusion on risk.
AirBnB is sort of stuck though, since they want to maintain this "sharing economy" fiction, where it's just friendly homeowners sharing their places. They don't want to admit they are encouraging unlicensed hotels that don't follow the law.
Welcome to the concept of Enlightened self interest. It's pretty much the same as, when poor: "The rich don't pay their fair share", and now if you become rich: "I pay a stupid amount in taxes".
Many fiscally liberal/progressive ideas are centered around hypocrisy. Everyone likes to talk the talk, but they don't act upon it.
It's not really a secret that some AirBnB hosts discriminate on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other factors when deciding on which guests they allow to live in their homes.
It's also no surprise that neighbours of those hosts also sometimes discriminate against guests who stay in their neighbourhood.
AirBnB can definitely work towards educating hosts and guests to try to reduce the chances of this happening, but I'm not sure that it's their job to try and fix what is really a societal problem that is reflected in how people use their service.
The US collects racial information in crime statistics, right? So it should be one evaluation of Bayes' Theorem to demonstrate actual increased risk based on race, if any. Seems like it should be pretty trivial in some areas to demonstrate exactly what the probabilities are (and if they are even relevant if background rate of crime is low).
So a guy all of a sudden sees strangers in his neighbors house. Nevermind their color - wouldn't you be suspicious if you all of a sudden saw 2 20-something dudes in your neighbors house? I know I would - I wouldn't even think twice about their color.
This is the example the article is holding up as the example of racism and it isn't even racist.
The trans example: I'm 100% for property owners deciding what they will and won't use their private property for. Get over it. You can't go through life getting offended at every opinion different from yours, even if you think it's irrational.
100% agree with all of this. While I'm not saying I would personally deny a trans person staying at my Airbnb, at the end of the day, it's the owner's decision. This isn't a public service where people of different race/color/religion/background/etc. are getting denied. It's all private property. It's 100% up to the owner what he/she/they want to use their property for, regardless of how ignorant/racist/stupid/etc. that choice may be.
Hotels have regulations that private homes don't. Though many of AirBnB's "hosts" would probably qualify under more regulations than they actually follow.
I guess I'm assuming the primary use of airbnb is 'rent my house', not 'stay in my guest room'. By offering both at the same place they really do seem to be muddying the waters.
Since I am not a god, and every person has a right to self ownership (extending to their property), a hotel owner has every right to decide by whatever criteria they see fit who uses their property. Just as I have every right to decide my own criteria for which hotels I would like to do business with (bigoted hotels wouldn't meet that criteria).
Every person has the right to life, liberty, and property.
You're being downvoted because you are objectively wrong.
42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
> All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
> Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
> (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;
Feel free to read up on Green Books -- Up until the 1960's, black Americans had to plan their trips out far in advance to avoid service refusals, discrimination, or outright violence at hotels throughout the country.
Hmmm, I made no statement about current laws. I stated my beliefs on natural rights. To concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the government. Humans, as independent actors, have other means to fight bigotry than infringing on one of a person's most sacred rights. You can't legislate morality.
There used to be an era in America where hotels could legally discriminate, making travel for minorities extremely difficult. This is not a matter of feeling offended, but a matter of having equal access to resources.
Private residences do not equal Hotels. If I don't want to be friends with minorities, I can choose not to be. If I do not want minorities staying in my private residence, I can refuse them staying there.
Off topic...at what point do we stop calling them "minorities" when they are the majority in many regions??
Thing is, it stopped being a "private residence" when it became a business of hospitality. Despite what Airbnb will claim, Airbnb's clients are absolutely operating as a hotel and should be governed as such (which has the nasty side effect of probably killing the business).
The second they start having to obey zoning regulations, building codes, taxation & insurance the way hotels do, their valuation drops precipitously.
That's an argument you can make (except for the part about calling your publicly advertised commercial hotel a "private residence"), but I hope you don't also say "racism is past in America, everyone had equal opportunity now", because that would be logically inconsistent.
So Airbnb wants to disrupt hotels. Assuming they successfully disrupt them, does that mean that non-white, non-heterosexual, non-cisgender groups will no longer be afforded the same guarantees that other private businesses must abide by?
It wouldn't take a particularly imaginative plaintiff's attorney to come up with a strong argument that Airbnb itself is culpable for enabling discriminatory behavior. AirBnB would have deep pockets, which makes them a juicy plaintiff's lawyer target, and they'd likely end up settling to include a bunch of protections for minorities in their business practices with the people who own the rental units.
Its pretty simple. AirBnB is a broker that provides a service to connect two people. Hotels are businesses that are licensed to provide lodging. They are regulated to provide the service. Their is a reason that cities have so much regulation on hotels. Just as they do restaurants.
AirBnB does not provide lodging which is the cause of a lot of problems.
Hotels are a regulated industry. This is my home and as such, I deserve to make decisions that I believe to be morally correct. If I google the guy who wants to rent my room and he has Facebook postings criticizing the US and cheering on ISIS then I don't want him in my home. I have the right to extend my personal value system in this way. Big government should not be able to shove people into my home against my will. This is clearly a 4th amendment issue.
Don't like it? Call the Best Western.
We also see exemptions to non-discrimintary laws for churchs, mosques, temples, etc. Its clear that society is not a "one size fits all" thing and exemptions are morally and socially justifiable. The same way I can't get funding and entitlements like affirmative action and other race-based policies, that are 100% racist and accepted by liberals as normal.
Thank you 4th Amendment. If this kind of thing, for some ridiculous reason, reaches any court, it should be thrown out by the 4th. However, in today's society, nothing would surprise me anymore.
It's almost like Silicon Valley's attempts to "disrupt" regulated industries by replacing them with its own alternatives that don't follow the regulations is a bad thing...
Please share with us your legal analysis that the Congress and SCOTUS are violating the 4th Amendment by passing and upholding anti-discrimination laws.
> government should not be able to shove people into my home
It's your hotel, not your home. No one is shoving people into you home; they are saying you can't invite the public and then keep certain protected classes out.
Don't like it? Don't run a public hotel from your residence.
> he has Facebook postings criticizing the US and cheering on ISIS then I don't want him in my home
Neither of these are a legally protected class under US discrimination law.
> . I have the right to extend my personal value system in this way. Big government should not be able to shove people into my home against my will. This is clearly a 4th amendment issue.
Except you are renting your home out. It's a business and you should absolutely be subject to the laws regarding non-discrimination that apply to a business.
If you don't like it then quit acting like a sketchy pseudo-hotel.
Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You believe that your property is being searched and/or seized when the government regulates your cottage business?
Totally agree. AirBnB couldn't wait for the opportunity to roll over, show their soft belly, and urinate all over themselves, instead of actually recognizing the false dichotomy.
Who knows - if the neighbors knew it was an AirBnB home then why would they get so worried?
There are lots of explanations for their actions that are completely reasonable. But when there is otherwise no evidence of racism, let's shout racism as loud as we can because the "movement" is more important than the facts.
It's tempting as a host to reject people of a certain type, but the line that I draw isn't on race, gender or religion — it's age.
I've come to find out that older folks — somewhere around 50+ — have been the worst possible guests, with no exceptions so far. They tend to be stingy with their star ratings and leave poor reviews even if they had a perfect experience. They also tend to be much more high-maintenance and not self-sufficient, acting as if they think the Airbnb is a hotel and the host is their concierge or room service.
The cost-benefit ratio doesn't work for me in these cases, so I've been intentionally passing on older people recently and trying to fill my Airbnb with younger folks. I never see age mentioned as a factor for discrimination in articles like these, and it seems that it may not be legislated in the same way that the other factors are.
But it feels like it's the exact same issue, and I'm willingly becoming more and more guilty of it.
Does AirBnB make it easy to view what ratings people have given? Certainly the history of an individual user provides much more useful, actionable information than any broad trait.
It should be easy for hosts to say they only want people with X reviews where most of them are 4-5 stars. Or a better score that weights it based on the host rating (i.e. if a user's hosts generally get 5 stars, but this user rates them all 3 stars, then it's probably a problem with the user, so avoid.) Perhaps AirBnB doesn't want do to this to avoid putting pressure on renters.
That would be a hugely useful metric for a host, but it actually is difficult to see how a user has rated their past hosts. The only method I know of is: view the user profile and look at their reviews, go to each host who reviewed them, search through their reviews to find the prospective guest. There are two points of failure here: if the guest didn't get reviewed by a host or if they didn't review a host. So when a guest only has 1-3 reviews, which seems to be about the average for older folks, it's hard to paint a picture.
I did reject a guest through this method, though. Their reviews from hosts were actually all very good, but when I read their reviews of their hosts, they contained things like "he was nice enough to give me a ride to the airport when I asked, though the car was a bit cramped."
I am not in a position to generalize but my worst(and only poor) experience was with an older foreign couple, likely in their 70s. I am usually very hands off with my guests but in this case, I showed them how to use the mirowave to make tea, how to operate the washer/dryer among other things. They acted annoyed through much of the trip but ultimately, I continued helping them because I figured a) I don't really know what it is like to be in their shoes b) these could very well be my parents or heck me, some day.
After the trip, I wasn't expecting a glowing review. But when I got a super negative review, I was pretty bummed.
I think that there is an unwritten rule that people in their 20s and 30s know, that 5 star review is the default unless it was absolute shit. Something which 'olds' don't really get. Which is fair really, because they have the graded option, its just us that perceive it differently.
Maybe AirBnB would benefit from a binary system plus comments?
Users flagged the story. Since to judge by the comments in this thread they were partly reacting to the linkbait title, we've replaced the title with that of the URL* and turned off the flags.
It's a private host offering to rent out to private guest. They can accept or deny anyone they please to for ANY REASON they feel. That can be race, gender, religion, anything...it doesn't matter. Go find a new hosts then or don't use Airbnb.
This problem is NOT Airbnb's to solve. In fact, I don't see this as a problem at all. If I don't want somebody staying at my place, I'm going to reject you, period. That's it...you can't sue me, nor Airbnb, stop crying discrimination, move on.
That's really weird perspective. Because the moment you are making a listing in the marketplace (Airbnb in this case). You are selling a good or service. And denying that good or service based on someone's race is definitely unlawful as it should be.
There is latent racism on Airbnb, but I think they're looking at it the wrong way.
We have two properties on Airbnb and instead of my white and shaved ugly head, my wife is on profile picture (she's asian). We get far more requests from minorities than is normal.
Basically, we've cornered the market on asian people visiting Cape Cod. It's not our doing, but there is clearly a selection bias by renters, which I think is human nature.
Would it change anything if this was about couchsurfing (free service) rather than airbnb? If it was about white co-renters voting against new black tenants?
What if I was traveling a lot and would let my friends use my car and/or stay at my house and all of them happened to be white? What if I was selective and refuse my best friend? Would it change anything if I asked for some kind of compensation? Compensation larger than to cover my direct costs? Is it business yet?
I am selling a used item and cancel the transaction if the buyer is black. Does it change anything if I resell items for a living and do the same?
I am not asking if this is racism. All I am asking is whether there is any difference between displaying discrimination in human to human interactions and human to society interactions.
I personally hate this hypocrisy of treating sharing economy as business when it is convenient and sharing between individuals when it is not. Very similar to general opinion I happen to read about Uber: since it is "ride sharing", therefore most regulations are excessive, yet drivers sharing full time is somehow a norm.
AirBnB is a YC company, so I can see why this is relevant. But the biggest threat to their business model isn't hotels, or the behavior of hosts. It's that they're still in the 'disrupt' phase and none of their status quo has been tested in the courts.
If there is alleged discrimination, some wronged party will eventually file suit, and the courts will decide whose rights are more pertinent.
If there is alleged skirting of regulations, some wronged party will eventually file suit, etc. Until these threads play out, they're growing, but after, they could crumble overnight. This uncertainty is the biggest threat to their business.
As long as these are personal residences serving short term boarding needs I have no problem with people being openly racist. To help AirBnB should put a very large black and white banner on listings where the owners have racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. visitor restrictions.
I know I can't bring my dog to certain places, I should know whether I can't invite my black friend.
People hate being labeled racist more than actually being racist. Good example: Trumps feelings on undocumented immigrants being rapists and murderers.
>Good example: Trumps feelings on undocumented immigrants being rapists and murderers.
Terrible example for whatever point you wanted to make. Here is the original quote:
>When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
So, what kind of mental gymnastics do you have to perform to conclude that he meant "undocumented immigrants are rapists and murderers"?
I think Airbnb (even leaving out the ‘skirting regulation’ stuff) is pretty much primed for discrimination. As soon as you require a photo of users you are doing that. It’s interesting to compare Airbnb and Uber (another company I’m leery of for skirting regulations).
As a black man in Boston, catching at taxi was an exercise in humiliation/frustration. Either they did not stop, or they did and were incredibly rude/racist. When Uber became available in Boston I immediately joined. It was an incredible experience. No more having to deal with rude/racist cab drivers, no more having to worry whether I’d actually ever be able to catch a taxi to get somewhere. I have not used Uber in SF since I’ve found no problem catching a cab when I need to (and I’ve become disturbed by their business model)
Airbnb is the exact opposite. It is essentially renting without the benefits of the Fair Housing Act or anti-discrimination laws. I’ve faced housing discrimination even with those laws in place (a good program on this is This American Life’s “House Rules” episode) so I’m under no illusion that things would magically be better on Airbnb’s platform. here are things they could do to fix this
- Not require photos
- Have metrics to track rejection by race (track when a host says no to one person and then yes to someone else for the same time period)
- Have a streamlined complaint policy
It’s not enough to ban one host cause he was so outright racist/egregious that it came to the attention of Social Media and finally their CEO.
117 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 198 ms ] threadhttp://www.innclusive.com/
http://noirbnb.launchrock.com/
If you create a site where the intended demographic is "anyone with a room that is pro-inclusivity", then surely you could create a community around people who self-select as not perpetuating racism/transphobia/general bigotry.
Ironically it isnt to far off ether. Where i live the majority of black youth have a bigger criminal history than their white peers. Sure this again fully depends on how the society treats them.
That's absurd. The USA is full of business running on platforms that are forbidden to discriminate against protected classes.
From reading this article, it sounds like they actually can't. Ultimately, they have to be willing to banish hosts who discriminate, which diminishes their platform.
Very easy to enforce: if airbnb investigates and finds you discriminate, you are out of the platform.
And even if i am wrong, there is still a huge difference between private selling and commercial selling.
But Airbnb hosts seem to be taking advantage of legal grey areas. Airbnb is directly competing with the hotel industry, but they are claiming those industry regulations don't apply to them. I'm not saying that they are necessarily doing anything illegal or definitely acting unethically. But I do think that they are operating in some legal grey areas, so it's not overreaching to try to increase or change how regulations apply to them.
But if it's more subtle and no explicit reason, it's going to be way harder to detect and adds a lot of judgement calls to the mix.. which puts it up the whims of whoever is doing support at that moment.
I wrote on this last year on how it could be totally transparent and devastating as a result: http://caseysoftware.com/blog/social-apis-for-social-evil
And if you expect that of AirBnB do you expect the same for private apartment sharing arrangements?
Single [ethnicity undisclosed] [gender undisclosed] seeks whoever the law says I have to live with?
If a homeowner has a spare bedroom across the hall from her 13-year-old son's room, and doesn't want to rent to transgender, black, or 65-year-old guests, it is legal for her to discriminate on those attributes.
On the other hand, if the AirBnb host is renting out a non-owner-occupied beach house, the discrimination laws would apply.
[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a:
Well, they should, and if airbnb is not willing to comply, the lawmaker should force them to.
Airbnb is not responsible for this, nor is doing anything wrong. If I do not want somebody in my private home, they will not step a foot in my private home. In fact, if they do, I have the right to take defensive action, including the use of lethal force when necessary. Don't like it? Leave.
Please don't use flamewar tropes on HN.
You seem to be confused. The cite I provided (42 U.S. Code § 2000a) is the actual anti-discrimination law and the law's text is explicitly written to exclude residences such as personal homes. You can't make AirBnB "comply" with a law that doesn't exist for homeowners and their spare bedrooms.
That law screams for reform, however.
http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Reaching-M...
Also, it would be trivial to use this brand of multiculturalism to justify open racism. Why should a Chinese person in Chinatown who doesn't speak English allow a white family to stay in their property? Or allowing a Russian to deny a Ukranian? Or allowing a black family who have been victimized by the police to allow a family containing police officers.
I imagine most SJW's would agree for "special exemptions" for these cases. The idea that no one should be turned down is asinine. These are people's homes and by the 4th Amendment the government can't shove people in them. Want to stay somewhere where they don't have these issues? Then call a hotel.
Not to mention the whole socially pertinent(Trump???) legacy of entrenched discrimination in the U.S.
I'm not sure if the original story is racism. If I (white) am staying in a Chinese apartment house that otherwise only has Chinese tenants then the likelihood that someone recognizes me as a non-tenant is 100%.
Therefore, the likelihood that someone reports me as a stranger is far greater than if I were Chinese.
In other words, I'd not be surprised if someone reported me (white) while staying in a (hypothetical) Chinese AirBnB.
As far as "recognizing the problem" goes: You pretty much have to acknowledge a "problem" if something like this comes up or you'll be harassed on the Internet.
Also, if my neighbor saw a bunch of strangers in my house when I was away, I would want them to call the police. The problem in that particular case is not that they called the police but that the neighbours were not notified about unexpected strangers staying in the neighborhood.
If someone doesn't want me (a brown male) to stay in their house, I would absolutely like to know and would prefer to have a filter to easily find only the places that accept someone like me. The problem is not discrimination. The problem is anti-discrimination bullshit the company has to go through if they provided such a filter to make lives easy for everyone.
This breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to call names in arguments. Please (re-)read them and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
Proof: out of 6,000+ availability request made (without checking actual availability which is known, but sending a request anyway) 50% of "white sounding names" were accepted, while only 42% of "black sounding names" where accepted.
That's like 8%!!! That means people are racist!
Or it means that the randomness of actually available houses was skewed where "black sounding names" were assigned more unavailable houses.
I wonder how many times they tried this experiment to get the result they were looking for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960708
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11645433
(Not coming from USA if that matters)
Which is what they are, incidents.
AirBnB is sort of stuck though, since they want to maintain this "sharing economy" fiction, where it's just friendly homeowners sharing their places. They don't want to admit they are encouraging unlicensed hotels that don't follow the law.
Many fiscally liberal/progressive ideas are centered around hypocrisy. Everyone likes to talk the talk, but they don't act upon it.
Others call this human nature...
It's also no surprise that neighbours of those hosts also sometimes discriminate against guests who stay in their neighbourhood.
AirBnB can definitely work towards educating hosts and guests to try to reduce the chances of this happening, but I'm not sure that it's their job to try and fix what is really a societal problem that is reflected in how people use their service.
This is the example the article is holding up as the example of racism and it isn't even racist.
The trans example: I'm 100% for property owners deciding what they will and won't use their private property for. Get over it. You can't go through life getting offended at every opinion different from yours, even if you think it's irrational.
Every person has the right to life, liberty, and property.
42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
> All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
> Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
> (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;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
Feel free to read up on Green Books -- Up until the 1960's, black Americans had to plan their trips out far in advance to avoid service refusals, discrimination, or outright violence at hotels throughout the country.
Off topic...at what point do we stop calling them "minorities" when they are the majority in many regions??
The second they start having to obey zoning regulations, building codes, taxation & insurance the way hotels do, their valuation drops precipitously.
If they are your guests. Not if they are your customers.
> Off topic...at what point do we stop calling them "minorities" when they are the majority in many regions??
We stop calling them minorities when they are no longer so heavily outnumbered by the dominant ethnic group.
AirBnB does not provide lodging which is the cause of a lot of problems.
Don't like it? Call the Best Western.
We also see exemptions to non-discrimintary laws for churchs, mosques, temples, etc. Its clear that society is not a "one size fits all" thing and exemptions are morally and socially justifiable. The same way I can't get funding and entitlements like affirmative action and other race-based policies, that are 100% racist and accepted by liberals as normal.
It's your hotel, not your home. No one is shoving people into you home; they are saying you can't invite the public and then keep certain protected classes out.
Don't like it? Don't run a public hotel from your residence.
> he has Facebook postings criticizing the US and cheering on ISIS then I don't want him in my home
Neither of these are a legally protected class under US discrimination law.
Except you are renting your home out. It's a business and you should absolutely be subject to the laws regarding non-discrimination that apply to a business.
If you don't like it then quit acting like a sketchy pseudo-hotel.
You believe that your property is being searched and/or seized when the government regulates your cottage business?
There are lots of explanations for their actions that are completely reasonable. But when there is otherwise no evidence of racism, let's shout racism as loud as we can because the "movement" is more important than the facts.
I've come to find out that older folks — somewhere around 50+ — have been the worst possible guests, with no exceptions so far. They tend to be stingy with their star ratings and leave poor reviews even if they had a perfect experience. They also tend to be much more high-maintenance and not self-sufficient, acting as if they think the Airbnb is a hotel and the host is their concierge or room service.
The cost-benefit ratio doesn't work for me in these cases, so I've been intentionally passing on older people recently and trying to fill my Airbnb with younger folks. I never see age mentioned as a factor for discrimination in articles like these, and it seems that it may not be legislated in the same way that the other factors are.
But it feels like it's the exact same issue, and I'm willingly becoming more and more guilty of it.
It should be easy for hosts to say they only want people with X reviews where most of them are 4-5 stars. Or a better score that weights it based on the host rating (i.e. if a user's hosts generally get 5 stars, but this user rates them all 3 stars, then it's probably a problem with the user, so avoid.) Perhaps AirBnB doesn't want do to this to avoid putting pressure on renters.
I did reject a guest through this method, though. Their reviews from hosts were actually all very good, but when I read their reviews of their hosts, they contained things like "he was nice enough to give me a ride to the airport when I asked, though the car was a bit cramped."
After the trip, I wasn't expecting a glowing review. But when I got a super negative review, I was pretty bummed.
Blackernews anyone . . .
HN wanna ring in?
* That's something we often do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11939165
This problem is NOT Airbnb's to solve. In fact, I don't see this as a problem at all. If I don't want somebody staying at my place, I'm going to reject you, period. That's it...you can't sue me, nor Airbnb, stop crying discrimination, move on.
We have two properties on Airbnb and instead of my white and shaved ugly head, my wife is on profile picture (she's asian). We get far more requests from minorities than is normal.
Basically, we've cornered the market on asian people visiting Cape Cod. It's not our doing, but there is clearly a selection bias by renters, which I think is human nature.
What if I was traveling a lot and would let my friends use my car and/or stay at my house and all of them happened to be white? What if I was selective and refuse my best friend? Would it change anything if I asked for some kind of compensation? Compensation larger than to cover my direct costs? Is it business yet?
I am selling a used item and cancel the transaction if the buyer is black. Does it change anything if I resell items for a living and do the same?
I am not asking if this is racism. All I am asking is whether there is any difference between displaying discrimination in human to human interactions and human to society interactions.
I personally hate this hypocrisy of treating sharing economy as business when it is convenient and sharing between individuals when it is not. Very similar to general opinion I happen to read about Uber: since it is "ride sharing", therefore most regulations are excessive, yet drivers sharing full time is somehow a norm.
If there is alleged discrimination, some wronged party will eventually file suit, and the courts will decide whose rights are more pertinent.
If there is alleged skirting of regulations, some wronged party will eventually file suit, etc. Until these threads play out, they're growing, but after, they could crumble overnight. This uncertainty is the biggest threat to their business.
I know I can't bring my dog to certain places, I should know whether I can't invite my black friend.
Terrible example for whatever point you wanted to make. Here is the original quote:
>When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
So, what kind of mental gymnastics do you have to perform to conclude that he meant "undocumented immigrants are rapists and murderers"?
Can I use this same logic for your typical Stanford, white male student? I'm pretty sure if I did I'd be considered the racist.
So who is the Donald referring to doing all the raping? Mexican based smugglers or US based undocumented migrants?
As a black man in Boston, catching at taxi was an exercise in humiliation/frustration. Either they did not stop, or they did and were incredibly rude/racist. When Uber became available in Boston I immediately joined. It was an incredible experience. No more having to deal with rude/racist cab drivers, no more having to worry whether I’d actually ever be able to catch a taxi to get somewhere. I have not used Uber in SF since I’ve found no problem catching a cab when I need to (and I’ve become disturbed by their business model)
Airbnb is the exact opposite. It is essentially renting without the benefits of the Fair Housing Act or anti-discrimination laws. I’ve faced housing discrimination even with those laws in place (a good program on this is This American Life’s “House Rules” episode) so I’m under no illusion that things would magically be better on Airbnb’s platform. here are things they could do to fix this
- Not require photos - Have metrics to track rejection by race (track when a host says no to one person and then yes to someone else for the same time period) - Have a streamlined complaint policy
It’s not enough to ban one host cause he was so outright racist/egregious that it came to the attention of Social Media and finally their CEO.
Back to the renting act. They are two parents and four kids. All black.
Well, I'm white. So I tried to do the renting.
Soon or later the topic will come up who will come.and fRom where etc.
Told them, they are from Nigeria and have American passports.
End of story. No one replied.
Ever.
People are still resists. Like it or not. Or they hate children.
Make out of it what you want.