The loss in commission argument is flawed since potential renters can exchange contact details with the owner beforehand.
The reason why I stay on the site is because as a renter I want some guarantee that my accommodation is going to be available when I get there and as an owner I want the insurance that Airbnb provides.
I'm actually surprised with such effort the rate of exposure of hosts was only 40%.
Even still, this seems pretty sensationalist to me. I find it hard to believe an organized service to "scam" Airbnb would be valuable to a host to save 3-5% at the cost of losing the legitimacy of being a part of the Airbnb platform. Furthermore, such a service would at least have the hurdle of being in violation of the ToS of using the site https://www.airbnb.com/terms#sec14 .
Also, all of the numbers in the article assume the Wisconsin data set would be representative. The article states less population dense areas would be more vulnerable to this algorithm. So, why does it extrapolate based on only 84 homes in a more "vulnerable" area? The article ignores the fact that Airbnb operates in countries that do not have the same laws as the US. So, not even all 3 million homes are vulnerable to this method. This article is fishing for a result that will make a good headline.
Am I missing the part where they explain how they tried really hard to make Airbnb aware of this, before publishing a method to cause physical harm to 1.2M people?
Oh no, you can figure out an address by knowing a building's general location and comparing photos to Google Street view/satellite. You can even stalk the owner on public records/social media for even more info. Next week: the attack works on craigslist postings too! And those photos you saw on Facebook!
4 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 24.2 ms ] threadThe reason why I stay on the site is because as a renter I want some guarantee that my accommodation is going to be available when I get there and as an owner I want the insurance that Airbnb provides.
Even still, this seems pretty sensationalist to me. I find it hard to believe an organized service to "scam" Airbnb would be valuable to a host to save 3-5% at the cost of losing the legitimacy of being a part of the Airbnb platform. Furthermore, such a service would at least have the hurdle of being in violation of the ToS of using the site https://www.airbnb.com/terms#sec14 .
Also, all of the numbers in the article assume the Wisconsin data set would be representative. The article states less population dense areas would be more vulnerable to this algorithm. So, why does it extrapolate based on only 84 homes in a more "vulnerable" area? The article ignores the fact that Airbnb operates in countries that do not have the same laws as the US. So, not even all 3 million homes are vulnerable to this method. This article is fishing for a result that will make a good headline.