
Airbnb and NYC bury the hatchet - yrro
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/12/airbnb-and-nyc-bury-the-hatchet/
======
mi100hael
Honestly, I wish NYC would have stood their ground. I'm curious to know what
their rationale was for acquiescing to Airbnb. I find myself feeling less and
less sympathy for companies like Airbnb & Uber when they bump into long-
standing regulations and then try and claim they're different and those regs
shouldn't apply. As someone else recently commented on a HN Uber article link,
the "sharing economy" is a total sham because anything that involves making a
profit is by definition not sharing.

In reality, Uber, Airbnb, etc. have just come up with a way for everyday folks
to collectively enter business spaces that weren't conveniently accessible
before. There's no valid reason why those individuals shouldn't be subject to
the same rules as the existing players ("the rules are bad" isn't a valid
reason), nor is there a valid reason why in instances like this the
facilitators shouldn't be held to the same standard as any other facilitator
like print classifieds. These companies' apps are nothing more than a very
convenient, well-engineered list of classifieds, and the
drivers/hosts/contractors are no different than any other contract cabbie or
bed & breakfast host who are subject to background checks, permits, etc. If
the existing rules suck, change them.

~~~
pyrophane
NYC has stood its ground. They haven't given up anything here. All they said
is that they wouldn't try to fine Airbnb itself under this law, which they
have stated was not their intention from the beginning (as to do so would
possibly violate federal law anyway).

And airbnb may only be enforcing a "one host, one home" policy in the city,
but the city will presumably still go after all "entire place" listings.

