Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Sorry PG, but you have a steep hill to climb if you want to defend aribnb.

The crux of your (and their) problem is this: Why, if, as you say, airbnb was being as helpful as possible from the get-go, did the victim write that second post?

That's it. You cannot have a claim to credibility until you answer that question. Even if that answer is, "she was paid off", the existence of her second blog post puts the lie to airbnb's (and your) claims. Either she's telling the truth, or they (and you) are. They are mutually exclusive stories.

Bringing Arrington's Arringtonity into this is a red herring. The story isn't about him. There are two involved parties, here, and you've aligned yourself with airbnb. The victim's story isn't being run through the TC filter; it's there for everyone to see. So far, the collective 'you' have not addressed it, refuted her points, or shown how the two accounts are compatible.

It's easy to hop on the "Michael Arrington is a sensationalistic dick" bandwagon, because he is. That doesn't address the issue, though, and it comes across as a deflection.




> Why, if, as you say, airbnb was being as helpful as possible from the get-go, did the victim write that second post?

Speculation:

Airbnb offered money and support if she agreed not to sue them and not to feed the press the negative story about the service. She refuses to commit to this, they refuse to pay her without it. None of the two parties wants to be transparent about this part of communication. Technically, no one lied.


That's the first plausible explanation I've seen that at least partially bridges the gaps in the two stories. Still, that scenario doesn't match airbnb's claims. They claim they've been helpful and supportive throughout this. If that was limited to being nice for the first few days then trying to buy her silence, that's nowhere close to how they've characterized it.


This is someone who thought it was a good idea to rent out their home (not just their property, their home) for a whole week, unattended, to a total stranger. The biggest mistake Airbnb have made is not overly trusting their travellers, but also their hosts.


No, the biggest mistake AirBnB has is not following PR 101 - get all the bad facts out at once, then start spinning up some positive stories. Feed reporters a narrative, and give them lots of headlines to use, or they will start thinking of ones themselves.

Day 1: A woman had her house trashed by a rogue guest. We do not believe we are legally responsible for this. All AirBnB users, while this is an isolated incident, please take care when taking in guests, especially if they are new users. See our guide to safer AirBnB here...

Day 2: We are working with the police, and have turned over all details relevant to the case. We are also in talks with the unfortunate host, seeing what we can do to help her with through this difficult time. If you wish to leave a supportive note to here, please leave it here:

Day 3. As we have stated, we do not believe we are liable for these actions. However, we overhauling our safety information, and offering support to the victim.

...

Really, it's not hard. OK, it is hard if you think you did no wrong, and everyone should see it from your point of view.


You would have a factual point if AirBnB prominently displays on relevant pages "We assume you are not stupid enough to rent out your primary residence. Make sure you don't since we are NOT in the insurance business and take NO responsibility for any damages".


This is the kind of situation that leads to 'Keep away from fire' labels being added to t-shirts.

To me renting your home to a stranger and then failing to check up on them for an entire week is incredibly naive. 10 year old naive. I don't care if airbnb said that they would provide 100% insurance, I would still not do this, it is simply against how I know the world works. And don't tell me about the 'good human being assumption', this is a fairytale, anyone making that assuption will get burned sooner or later.


Your post is a bit cynical. Most people are good in most interpersonal matters. This doesn't mean that you should take the gamble, however, on something as personal and important as your primary residence. We should recognize that while most people will not trash your home if you let them stay there without any supervision for a whole week, some people will. I don't know the exact proportion, but even if the chance is small, you may want to think carefully about whether you want to take that chance.

It's important to have a belief that most people are not looking to screw up your life specifically. It's also important to not be so naive that you take dangerous gambles, like the ones made in EJ's story. Better safe than sorry.

There's an important equilibrium to be struck here.


In Russian roulette most chambers ARE empty. Most pulls on the trigger will NOT kill you.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand this "most people are good" argument in this context.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige

Call me old fashioned, but I personally believe that we, the technical elite who effortlessly can integrate new tech into our lives and understand the deeper implications of technology being used -- here is looking at you Google founders in context of privacy -- are a form of a pseudo nobility and have responsibilities to our less fortunate brethren (who yes, sometimes DO need big warning stickers on comforters and coffee cups containing excessively hot liquids).

imho, this affair is simply a manifestation of a larger problem:

the profit motive has diluted hacker ethics.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: