
Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts - brentm
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/technology/airbnb-anti-discrimination-rules.html?_r=0
======
dilap
I don't know if this is really a tractable problem.

At the end of the day, either airbnb lets hosts decide who stays or doesn't.
If they don't let hosts decide, they'll likely lose a ton of hosts, since
having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. If
they do, then they're going to have significant discrimination problems as
long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever.

~~~
brightball
That was my thought here as well. It's one thing to have very public
businesses with anti-discrimination rules, but something like Air BnB where
people have to decide in most cases who they are going to let into their homes
is a much more complicated problem.

We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people
from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the
opposite of the point of the US.

What if a host wanted to turn away somebody who was an avid white supremacist?
This isn't the same thing as giving somebody a key to a hotel room.

EDIT: Worth pointing to another comment that cites the law:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577)

> Those anti-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"

~~~
mcshicks
Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US and it's illegal
to discriminate on the basis of race in housing.

The law seems perfectly clear to me.

As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by
sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful-- (a) To refuse to
sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate
for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling
to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or
national origin.

[https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-
act-2](https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

~~~
yummyfajitas
The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB (except
possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it). From 803(b):

 _(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall
apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:..._

(It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. Section 804 is what you
quoted.)

 _(2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or
intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of
each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living
quarters as his residence._

So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family
brownstone, none of this actually applies to me.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB

It pretty clearly applies to _lots_ of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not
all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use
without exception, simply because _using AirBnB_ seems to make it applicable,
as discussed below.

> _Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall
> apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:..._

(Note that lots of AirBnB rentals of single-family homes are _not_ by the
_owner_ , and thus not within this exception even before considering the
limitations on the exception.)

> (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. [...])

And you shouldn't have, because the part that you snipped is _all_ limitations
on the part of the you quoted, including the most important one: "Provided
further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-
family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if
such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or
rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker,
agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the
business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any
such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication,
posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in
violation of section 804(c) of this title; [...]"

The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely
within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception.

~~~
jasode
_> The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely
within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception._

I don't think it would be. The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more
of a secondary definition to help the law pin down properties that are
"commercial". In other words, if you're paying the high price of contracting a
broker, you're 99.99% likely not to be renting out a personal bedroom.

The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper
classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

As far as I can tell, very few people including states' general attorneys or
Federal courts interpret Airbnb's situation as a broker service that is
therefore subject to those limitations.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition

No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner
exception, and applies to _any_ use of any rental (or sale) services of a
broker, agent, or person in the business of renting (or selling) real estate
in support of a discriminatory rental, after December 31, 1969.

Its only legal (since 1970) under the federal fair housing act to
discriminate, _even_ as a homeowner renting their own home, if the rental is
arranged without the use of some commercial rental-arrangement service.

(And even them it may be illegal under _state_ fair housing laws.)

> The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper
> classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

That's certainly the argument a discriminating owner using AirBnB (or possible
AirBnB themselves) would try to make, but AirBnB's financial and substantive
involvement in the transaction is very different than that of a hands-off
listing service like a newspaper classified section, so I don't think that
argument would fly. If AirBnB actually _acted_ like a newspaper classified
service, that argument might be valid, but that's not what AirBnB does (if we
were talking, instead, about Craigslist, that would be a good argument.)

~~~
jasode
_> No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the
homeowner exception, [...]_

To be clear, my response was not disagreeing with this part.

------
bobjordan
Yeah, well after having a multi-day house party thrown in my Houston home by a
local guy that had the gall to write "God Bless you" several times before the
rental, and Airbnb doing nothing about the damages (huge scratches on brand
new $5K bedroom suite, a frigging water-logged kitchen ceiling, cabinet doors
torn off hinges, etc.) we will no longer rent to any local, of any race.
Anyone that rents my house is going to prove they are an out-of-town traveler.
At the end of the day, the owner should have the final word on their house.

~~~
untog
That's not really relevant here. The article is specifically about racial
discrimination.

~~~
ekianjo
What's relevant is that AirBnB is against the Freedom of Owners to select who
stays at their place. In the end Owners should have the final word, no matter
what, certainly not AirBnB.

~~~
exclusiv
I agree even if AirBnB is the booking driver.

1) AirBnB has a history of poor support for hosts that have troublesome
renters.

2) AirBnB does a terrible job screening renters.

3) This could be easily used against a host improperly. I had a group of
sorority girls that wanted to book my house. They told me they had almost 40
women so I declined. I don't have a problem with women but this could be used
against me in a legal battle. You have to discriminate as a host. If 10 young
guys wanted to book my house too my radar would be off that they MIGHT be
there for a party. It has nothing to do with being a bigot against age or
gender but minimizing risk which AirBnB does not help with.

If they enforce instant book I could be stuck with 40 women at my house in a
city I'm legally approved for advertising and sleeping 14 (it's based on 200
sq ft per person). AirBnB doesn't have all the local rules.

4) Let's say someone is bigoted and they own a house - if you're a potential
renter in a group they dislike, do you really want to shell over money to them
and stay at their home? Also, what are the chances that the bigoted host is
going to provide a good experience or good customer support when required?

These booking sites are taking more money and providing less. They want to
drop your ADR like Uber wanted to drop fares for wider appeal. And they avoid
all liability. It's getting more and more unfriendly for hosts.

~~~
untog
Let's say someone is bigoted and they own a company - if you're a potential
employee in a group they dislike, do you really want to spend your days in
their workplace? Also, what are the chances that the bigoted employer is going
to provide a good experience or career progression when required?

...so we're cool with dropping employment discrimination laws too?

~~~
exclusiv
You're comparing employment with staying at someone's HOME.

~~~
untog
If you choose to make your home a place of business, you must comply with
business rules.

They're providing a service in return for money, they have to declare the
earnings from such for tax purposes... there is no line here. A psychiatrist
who operates out of a home office has no legal right to discriminate based on
race, either.

~~~
wonder_er
This is a case for dropping employment laws, not enforcing them on a wider
class of people.

~~~
untog
You're saying that evidence AirBnB hosts discriminate racially is a case for
dropping employment laws?

------
nicolas_t
As an host, I'll never discriminate on the basis of religion, sex orientation,
color of skin, national origin or gender identity.

When it comes to disability, I might refuse someone whose disability would
cause risk in using the apartment and might have an accident because the
apartment is not safe for someone who's disabled (the building is 300 years
old, there's no elevator, the stair in the duplex apartment doesn't have
handrails)... It's a risk if the person then has an accident...

Similarly in term of age, I would not rent to couples with young children
because it's too risky.

So, it's discrimination but it's mostly because this is not an hotel, it's an
apartment in which I live part of the year and it's not adapted for disabled
people or couples with young children because I'm not in those categories.

That said, as someone whose wife is asian, I fully understand the problem.
It's annoying and painful when people discriminate based on race.

In our case, we show both my face and wife face on our Airbnb profile photo
because we prefer to have a host refuse on the basis of wife's nationality
than to give money or stay at the house of a racist host. I've had a bad
experience before that with a host who was nice to me when I met him and then
wasn't as nice 5 minutes later once my wife arrived... The fact that he earned
money from our stay galls me...

~~~
pascalmemories
If I understand correctly, you're happy to be the one discriminating against
disabled people, old people and people with children.

But you're not happy if you're on the receiving end of any discrimination.

Don't you see the contradiction there ?

Anti-discrimination policies are about ensuring people have equal access to
services and facilities (whether it's contentious toilets or hotels or
whatever).

You seem to indicate in your jurisdiction that renting an apartment without
safety rails is OK, but in many others it's not OK and you'd be in violation
of safety laws (and also discrimination laws). It doesn't matter that you live
there sometime - you're renting it as a facility and should be expected to
comply with safety and whatever other laws apply. And if you do it via AirBnB,
you also need to comply with their rules regardless of legal requirements. And
AirBnB get to change the rules when they want and you either agree or stop
using them.

~~~
saiya-jin
why the attack?

the fact that he didn't put in enough safety in complicated apartment is the
reason for you to attack him? Well maybe it technically challenging, would
make the place ugly or is near impossible given the layout of the place or
materials used to build it. You cannot just drill anywhere you want in
buildings that are few hundred years old for example.

there is a distinction between sharing an apt and going to hotel. Latter is
vastly more regulated, former is a bit wild west and exactly the reason why
people are using it (because with this comes usually lower price if more
people will be accommodated, more homely feel with more equipment ala full
kitchen etc.).

Let's not try to make private apartments hotels, because then we end up
with... just more fugly hotels.

~~~
pascalmemories
My comments are far from an attack; an attack would have been more than
summarizing his comments in 2 lines and then pointing out there was a
discrepancy.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting anyone should 'just
drill anywhere' from ?

As an old person or a disabled person, looking on AirBnB, I can see what the
apartment has and how it is laid out (provided good pictures and description
are provided).

Being old or disabled does not stop me being mentally competent to decide for
myself whether I'm capable of climbing stairs or negotiating the apartment. It
is actually a very offensive and discriminatory thing to suggest either of
these personal attributes make me mentally incompetent and this is the core of
what makes such discrimination offensive - and illegal - in many jurisdictions
around the world.

If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other
regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure
to comply. If you're worried about damage being caused in trying to fit them
yourself, you hire a professional to do it instead and then it's their job to
ensure the building is still sound after the installation. You're operating
what is essentially a business, so costs like that are reasonable business
expenses to offset against your profits and the result is you get an improved,
safer, house for you and guests and essentially get the guests to pay for it,
making you ahead.

I don't understand why you're so upset.

~~~
vinceguidry
> If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other
> regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure
> to comply.

Of course it is. Otherwise every time a new building code gets published, the
entire city suddenly has to remodel. This might be acceptable for stuff like
stair handrails, but is totally ridiculous for stuff like electrical
connections. You really gonna make everybody change their electrical service
and rip all the wire out of their home?

In theory it would be nice to be able to go into every building and expect
certain features to be present. In practice it would be impossible.

------
jasode
_> Airbnb said it would also accelerate the use of instant bookings, which
lets renters book places immediately without host approval._

Maybe I'm naive but it seems like that policy would be perceived by hosts as
extremely hostile. Homeowners have both a financial and emotional vested
interest in their homes so letting strangers book it without a cursory check
isn't going to work. Having no checks would work for real estate holders who
aren't emotionally attached to their homes but not homeowners who live in the
same house they rent.

Even if it's irrational and discriminatory, homeowners want to maintain some
semblance of control over who stays at their home. It's the homeowner who has
to pay for damages/misbehavior -- whether directly or by home insurance
deductibles and higher premiums. (As I understand it, AirBnb's coverage
guarantee only kicks in _after_ the homeowner exhausts his personal
insurance.)

Does anyone know the bulk of AirBnb's business revenue? Is it homeowners
renting out a spare bedroom? Or is it people renting out non-owner occupied
beach houses and lofts?

EDIT ADD: Every time an AirBnb thread about racism comes up, many commenters
are confused or ignorant about _what the law actually says_. To copypaste a
previous comment:

Those anti-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"_

In other words, 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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a):

~~~
ovis
What if there was a reputation threshold for a traveller to make an instant
booking? Of course it's still not immune to racism or sexism, but it seems
that it would provide a decent buffer against it.

~~~
pooper
Nope. I would not ever rent a room with instant booking unless Airbnb signs a
blank check for any damages by the guest (which it of course won't)

~~~
huac
Do you think the $1M insurance policy isn't enough?

~~~
pooper
Please take a look [https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Airbnb-1-million-host-
guarantee...](https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Airbnb-1-million-host-guarantee-a-
marketing-gimmick)

The Airbnb Host Guarantee is a total fraud. I looked into the abyss of worst
case predatory corporate behavior when I filed my claim.

I am a big Airbnb fan, both as a host in my New York aparment and as a guest.
But when I had my first bad experience with a guest that damaged property
(floor, walls) and stole a whole set of expensive cosmetics from a friend that
were stored in my bathroom, Airbnb behaved terribly. They basically dragged
out the process over a month, demanding more and more “evidence” (a police
report, exact list of missing items, photos of damage, quotes from handyman
and Amazon list price links were insufficient). They continuously set 48 h
“deadlines” for responses nearly every time I got a message, and said if I
miss them the case gets closed.

After jumping through all the hoops, they told me they decided to close the
case anyway.

This was a shocking experience - I read the terms and of course, there are
certain things I didn’t provide (mostly the purchasing receipts for the stolen
goods, since I don’t keep those). But the pictures with damages and police
report got simply ignored by them.

This was “only” about $3,000, so it’s not worth to hire a lawyer and spend
more time on this.

The Airbnb Host Guarantee is definitely a fraud, and Airbnb should be
absolutely ashamed for their deceptive advertising.

Here are some more details in case you are interested:

* I had trouble with the guest already when they stayed in my apartment, and complained with Airbnb. Airbnb reviewed the case and had the guest actually pay for additional people they brought over to live there. The Airbnb team responsible for handling problems with the guest while staying there was great.

* After the guests left, we assessed the room and saw all the damage, and realized they had stolen lots of valuable items from the bathroom. I immediately informed Airbnb. They passed the case on to another guy called “Reiko”, and that’s where nightmare started.

Some official correspondence from Airbnb’s Reiko:

“If a host requests compensation through the Host Guarantee program, Airbnb
will review the damages to determine if the guest is responsible and if the
host qualifies for reimbursement under our terms:www.airbnb.com/terms

If the host qualifies for compensation, Airbnb will take measures to recoup
those funds from the guest.”

> So, Reiko told me basically that if the guest doesn’t pay, I don’t get paid.
> Of course the guest doesn’t pay, he was a crook who stole my stuff.

After 1 months of back and forth, police involvement, handyman reviews and
spending hours on this stupid case following Reiko’s instruction, he send me
this:

“Thank you for getting in touch with us. We understand that this may have been
a difficult and frustrating process.Unfortunately, we did not receive a
response from you within 48 hours of our last email, sent on August 7th, as
was specifically requested. Therefore, your claim was closed.”

>> The Airbnb host Guarantee states explicitly that a host has 60 days time to
SUBMIT the request. I submitted within 24 hours on July 30th, and then Reiko
dragged the process out over a month back and forth.

I freaked out given this out-of-control statement and asked Reiko what this is
all about. I received this cookie cutter response:

“Thank you so much for following up, I definitely understand how frustrating
all of this must be for you.

Whenever a situation like this arises, we advocate for an amicable solution.
As a neutral third-party not present during the reservation, we must make a
fair decision based on documentation and communication from both host and
guest.

Following a full review of all documentation and communication in this case,
we reached what we believe to be a fair compromise for both parties. As you
may already know, our policies state that we have the final say in any dispute
to which we are called upon to mediate. As such, the decision reached in this
case is final and cannot be overturned.“

WOW.

Basically, there is no Host Guarantee. Airbnb simply tries to convince the
fraudulent guest to pay. If they don’t pay, you (I) are screwed. Airbnb is not
going to pay a dime.

This is in clear violation of their own stated terms. It says:

“We’re committed to creating a safe and trusted community around the world.
Though property damage is rare, we understand you may need protection. The
Host Guarantee will reimburse eligible hosts for damages up to $1,000,000.”

>> What it doesn’t mention is that it’s the guest’s responsibility to pay this
$1,000,000.

It also states:

Useful documentation and information that will help process your payment
request as quickly as possible include:

    
    
        photographs of the damage being claimed
        a police report for any damage that is over $300 USD
        receipts or some alternative evidence of the accurate fair market value or report cost
        proof of ownership
        any other documentation that you feel will be helpful to processing your request
    

>> We delivered all of this, but it didn’t help. We didn’t see a single dime.

The bottom line:

Either Reiko is a liar and processed our case in the wrong way, or the Host
Guarantee is a fraud. I am pretty sure I would win this in court; but Reiko
and Airbnb unfortunately know that it’s not worth my time and money given the
small (but still significant) amount of $3,000.

My guess is Airbnb simply assesses your earnings and comes up with a certain
limit below that they will just screw you over and say “goodbye, no host
guarantee for you” in clear violation with their own terms, since they know
you can’t go to court.

I at least wanted to let my friend on Quora know.

Very sad and disillusioned with the “sharing economy”. This is not a friendly
startup, but worst case predatory corporate behavior. If you have gone through
the same thing, maybe we can file a class action lawsuit.

------
tedmiston
I've always considered it a legitimate request when people want to live with
others of the same gender for a shared room in their home.

For example, you especially see this on sites like Craigslist when people are
seeking roommates. This policy seems to overturn the ability of hosts to do
this. If I were a female in an all female home renting out one room, it would
make me uncomfortable. Perhaps other do not see this as an issue in short-term
renting, but I do.

~~~
tedmiston
Update: My assumption is incorrect. Airbnb has added a policy specifically to
permit this use case -- see "Gender" section.

[https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/airbnb-s-
nondiscrim...](https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/airbnb-s-
nondiscrimination-policy--our-commitment-to-inclusion-and-respect)

------
gmarx
Many other commenters imply that since people would flee the platform if they
couldn't discriminate, that AirBnB shouldn't have to deal with the problem.
It's the opposite. AirBnB is required to deal with the problem. Their
challenge is to make it look like they are dealing with the problem (e.g. hire
Eric Holder) while not actually dealing with it in any substantive way.

Lots of these new companies have as part of their secret sauce the hiding of
racial discrimination and avoiding regulations and fees that their old style
competitors can't. once/if the govt cracks down a lot of these valuations must
be reimagined

~~~
aikah
Wow, you're right :

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/technology/airbnb-hires-
ex...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/technology/airbnb-hires-ex-attorney-
general-eric-holder-to-advise-on-anti-bias-policy.html)

It's like these corporations hiring diversity officers who won't fix anything
in their discriminatory hiring process. Pure PR.

~~~
saiya-jin
actually this doesn't mean anything - hiring a black person for anti-
discriminatory position seems exactly like PR. Hey look, we hired him, we
cannot possibly be discriminative, right?

and nobody was talking about airbnb's hiring process here, WTF?

------
aikah
well people should have figured out by now : Airbnb's aren't hotels. And
people should be free to deny others staying at their place, for whatever
reason. Airbnb can't have it both ways, they know it and this effort will be
pure PR.

~~~
exelius
I dunno; I feel Airbnb is really losing control of their product.

Most recently, I've noticed a lot of listings of great places for awesome
prices... but only if you're willing to rent for 12 months continuously,
provide your own furniture and pay a security deposit -- which is just a
fucking apartment lease. It makes it hard to find "legit" rentals with so much
of this kind of spam filling up the listings.

Worse yet, when I went to report such listings (since I'm pretty sure that's
not what Airbnb is designed for), I couldn't figure out how to do it in the
app. I get that companies want to operate with minimal overhead, but until
their listing systems are run by AI that can outsmart unscrupulous humans, it
makes their product shittier.

~~~
saiya-jin
this doesn't make sense - you were looking for short term rental and the
search was filled with 12-month rentals? ie the airbnb search is broken or the
owners was falsely advertising short term availability when only yearly was
available?

------
southphillyman
I'm confused by the responses in here so far. How does discriminating based on
race, gender, age, etc guarantee that your property will not be damaged? If
you want the access and business that using AirBnb's platform provides then
you need to adhere to their rules. Pretty simple. If that's a problem use
craigslist or some other service so you can use whatever prejudices you have
to screen guests.

~~~
ekianjo
AirBnB places are not hotels. In the end as an Owner you should be free to
select whoever you accept, just like you are free to decorate your place the
way you wish. It's down to personal preference because it's the Owner's place
in the end.

~~~
dragonwriter
> AirBnB places are not hotels.

Often, they are _exactly_ illegal hotels.

> In the end as an Owner you should be free to select whoever you accept

You generally aren't legally in the US, with very narrow exceptions,
especially if you have a commercial service involved with you in arranging the
rental. AirBnB doesn't make the laws, but they are bound by them, and are
visible enough that simply ignoring them may no longer be tenable.

~~~
ng12
"Often" is a stretch. I've never seen anything I would classify as a hotel in
the US. I have seen them in other countries, e.g. SE Asia, and those were
completely legal.

------
draugadrotten
Coming up next: AirBnB adopts rules in effort to fight discrimination OF its
hosts.

Some guests may avoid to stay with hosts of certain life styles, gender, race
or religion. This discrimination must be stopped.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper
> classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

Unlike discrimination by hosts against renters, discrimination by renters
against hosts doesn't seem to be a violation of the fair housing laws of
either the United States or any State, so, at least in the US, is less likely
to be a legal compliance issue to which their may be liability attached.

------
dahdum
So the article has this bit:

'The biases of hosts can be cloaked — for example, one Airbnb listing in
Washington states “we cannot accept guests arriving in D.C. by bus or motor
coach,” without mentioning race, class or ethnicity — and may be difficult to
eradicate.'

If you google it, there is only one AirBnb account with it (few listings for
the rooms), with 882 total reviews.
[https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/56977?sug=50](https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/56977?sug=50)

This is what they put in their description:

"Regrettably,we cannot accept guests arriving in DC by bus or motor coach. If
you are travelling in the northeast corridor, especially from New York or
Philadelphia, we suggest you take the Amtrak train service."

I really wonder if they have a valid reason (late arrival due to bus delays
for instance), but I suppose if it's looks discriminatory that's as bad as
being so.

~~~
santaclaus
> we cannot accept guests arriving in D.C. by bus or motor coach

How would the host even know that? Are they going to ask for a picture of your
plane ticket?

~~~
dahdum
Right, and many of their reviews mention how close the bus and metro lines
are, so it's not like they are a transit dead zone.

------
mc32
One thing I didn't see is AB&B promoting its business model to affected
classes of people. Get more affected classes of people on your platform (i.e.
as hosts) and have them lead the way.

------
marcoperaza
Very tricky. Who you allow to stay in your home is a very personal and grave
decision and people want as much information about the potential guests as
possible. If they were to take this a step further and remove guest pictures
altogether, I suspect that you'd see a mass flight to a competing platform.

For people who are renting out their primary home (and especially if they'll
be there at the same time as the guest), I don't think it's _ever_ right to
challenge their decision to accept or deny a guest.

But someone running a number of units as full-time rentals should be held to
anti-discrimination laws.

------
kchoudhu
I've historically had trouble getting people to respond to my lodging requests
on AirBNB. I learned quickly to let my (white) wife do the bookings for our
family. When I'm traveling on my own, it's just easier (and frequently
cheaper) to just check into a traditional hotel.

It's an intractable problem, and I don't see a good way forward for AirBNB.

------
Sunstar
I have happily rented to people of many races, religions, and nationalities,
mixed race and same-sex couples, and so forth. However, I do not want anybody
telling me who I must have in my home. My nephew did four tours in Iraq and
does not care to have Iraqis in his home, I have fire-code-acceptable windows
in my apartment but a physically-handicapped person could not reach them. I
rent to Orthodox Jews under a privacy plan but I don't want to be told I must
make sweeping accommodations due to a guest's religious observances. I won't
rent to teens at all so what if they happen to be Muslim? I don't rent to
anyone who can't pass a background check so what if they happen to be
Hispanic? My husband and I are in our 70s and carefully vet everyone we invite
into our home, and no one is going to ever tell me I can't.

------
djschnei
How as a society do we decide appropriate discrimination vs. inappropriate
discrimination? We discriminate constantly, every single of us - making choice
of this person over that person. Is that wrong? when does it become wrong? is
it not something that can be hashed out?

~~~
6dqh5yapl3
We have had this debate in the US. We determined that that you can
discriminate against people for most random reasons, but if you run a public
accommodation there are several specific reasons you can't use to
discriminate.

~~~
djschnei
Those being race, gender, creed, and sexual orientation I suppose? Still seems
rather arbitrary, if I'm being honest. Acting for example; how is casting
based on race legal? Or maybe it's not... idk. Interesting topic though.

------
barnassey
Going to be honest, they can try but since these are private homes they wont
get far.

~~~
djschnei
Why doesn't that logic apply to, say, private coffee shops?

------
peterkshultz
Airbnb's report can be found here: [http://blog.airbnb.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/REPORT_Air...](http://blog.airbnb.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/REPORT_Airbnbs-Work-to-Fight-Discrimination-and-Build-
Inclusion.pdf)

------
fastball

      In May, Gregory Selden, who is African-American, filed a class-action discrimination suit against the company, saying that he had been denied a place to stay because of his race.
    

Well that's just ridiculous.

AirBnB is a facilitator. They don't make decisions like that. Can they
encourage anti-discrimination? Sure. Is it their responsibility? No.

------
marknutter
Doesn't discrimination end up hurting the hosts in the end? Having less demand
drives the rental costs down.

~~~
Frondo
It didn't hurt businesses in the American south enough to compel them to stop
discriminating. I don't get it either, why would I turn down someone's money
because they're black, but lots of people did and whatever economic pain they
felt from it was apparently outweighed by the joy of being racist assholes.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Please learn some history. Businesses in the American south were legally
required to discriminate.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws)

One of the major motivations in keeping Jim Crow laws was to prevent economic
competition (a "race to the bottom") between whites and non-whites. See also
FDR's pro-union/pro-white policies.

~~~
rmxt
Linking to Wikipedia without expounding which details you are referring to is
a bit of sleight of hand. Specifically, what part of "separate but equal" [1]
"legally required" that "separate" facilities for blacks have poorer
conditions than the facilities for whites? I speculate that it's embedded
cultural beliefs of hatred and superiority/inferiority (or, at a minimum,
apathy) that caused those poorer conditions and discrimination to happen much
more so than anything that was "legally required" or based on economic
concerns.

Also, the issue at hand for Airbnb is specifically about hosts discriminating
against potential guests. How do hosts that discriminate against guests
encourage a "race to the bottom"? There might be parallels between
discrimination a la _Jim Crow_ and discrimination a la _Airbnb hosts_ , but
they aren't in the form of economic concerns. Your snark about learning
history seems misplaced.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson#Significanc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson#Significance)

~~~
yummyfajitas
If you scroll up, you'll see Frondo asserting that "It [discrimination] didn't
hurt businesses in the American south enough to compel them to stop
discriminating."

Frondo is attempting to argue that market forces don't punish people (much)
for discrimination. I'm simply pointing out that market forces weren't even
allowed. People discriminated because the law said things like this:

"No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls."

"Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where
members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for
instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor..."

"No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers
at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common
carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored
passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter."

" Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion
picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which
is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race
and the colored race..."

[http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa...](http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepage.htm)

~~~
rmxt
Only one (the first) of the four quotes you've chosen restrict market forces
in the way you are envisioning, i.e. white workers don't want black
competition. I'd be interested in what the next sentence was, and wouldn't be
surprised if it was "no white barber shall serve as a barber to colored
women". (Aside: it seems like lots of these snippets are floating around the
internet with little by way of attribution.)

The remaining three are "separate but equal". We return to the question: what
about these laws _required_ that the "separate" facilities be of lesser
quality? Nothing about "separate but equal" immediately screams
"discrimination", but as we know from history, it can end in discriminatory
practice. The _de facto_ ramifications of the laws were that black populations
suffered (economically/educationally/etc.) at the hands of white populations:
the market forces were not strong enough to encourage a lifting of the laws,
or genuinely equal facilities, as Frondo suggests. Similarly, market forces
may not be strong enough to encourage Airbnb hosts to serve all potential
customers equally.

Your causation is backwards: people created the laws (under guise of equality)
because they wanted to discriminate (and, if you want to boil everything down
to some ahistorical economic gesture, it resulted in market forces tilting in
their favor). To say that the laws _stemmed_ from the economic implications is
a stretch, especially post _Plessy_.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The first of the four quotes describes a market restriction on employment. The
other three describe market restrictions demanding discrimination for
customers.

 _Similarly, market forces may not be strong enough to encourage Airbnb hosts
to serve all potential customers equally._

That may be true, but citing legally required discrimination as evidence in
favor of that proposition is silly. No one claims market forces can fix bad
politics.

~~~
rmxt
If we can't agree that the last three refer to "separation" ( _de facto_
discrimination) and not _de jure_ discrimination, I think we will only
continue to argue past one another.

------
fiatjaf
With increasing risks that come with the platform growth, this is a move
against host safety. We need more discrimination (I mean potential guests
should be made to supply more information to give hosts better ways to
discriminate), not less.

Robbery, rapes and kills are waiting in the corner.

------
fooker
I have had a reservation cancelled in the last moment (in the Bay Area)
without a valid reason. Also about half of the hosts do not even reply to the
initial queries. It is not hard to speculate that me being a 20-something
brown guy has something to do with it.

------
URSpider94
It's time to stop and think about where the cyber-Libertarian line of argument
is taking us.

On the one side, AirBnB's rampant violation of lodging and zoning regulations
should be disregarded because it's the will of the people, and because hotels
are just abusing their government-granted monopoly on mini soaps and pay-per-
view porn.

Now people are arguing that, because AirBnB is only serving as a matchmaking
service for millions of individual homeowners, not only is it hard to prevent
discrimination, but they shouldn't even try.

Assuming the free market works as it usually does, we are heading for a future
where we replace millions of hotel beds that are guaranteed to serve everyone
equally with millions of AirBnB beds hosted by proprietors free to
discriminate against anybody and everybody. How is that progress?

------
andykmaguire
Where are the consequences for discriminating hosts? This feels like lip
service.

~~~
cloudjacker
lets read the new 'community commitment' agreement on Nov. 1st.

------
jscardella
I've read through many of the comments here. People are discussing laws,
morality, and how race bias affects our behaviors. All interesting topics. The
thing that is most obvious to me is that disrupting technologies and services
like $x.sharing challenge existing laws, which are based on past experiences
and don't plan for future growth.

It's also obvious we're ill-equipped to deal with it in a timeframe that is
reasonable. It's a race condition that the law will always lose, because by
the time it catches up the new disrupter will be in full effect.

I think that AirBnB is doing a good thing by trying to address a real problem,
even if it's not 100% effective. And if they determine it is not, I hope they
continue to try and make it better.

------
sergiotapia
People giving their homes to Airbnb aren't hotels. They should be entitled to
do whatever they want with it.

And what's this no picture thing? Pictures are really important and gut
feelings are a great thing.

------
sonink
Airbnb is too hyped up. It needs to learn some lessons from its Indian
counterpart Oyo rooms.

------
danielrhodes
On the flip side, do you really want to stay with a host who would otherwise
be discriminatory towards you. I certainly wouldn't. It might be more
interesting if you provided your discriminating characteristics and then you
could publicly see a host's bias.

~~~
ritchiea
I'm black and I agree with you. I don't want bigots strong armed into
accepting my money. Though I do understand how someone would feel slighted by
race based discrimination and want to take action against it.

------
kingmanaz
Freedom of association is not evil.

------
usaphp
I've recently used airbnb services for the first time, I stayed in Pasadena,
the apartment was nice and everything but the ceiling fan was installed below
safety height of 7', when I was taking off my shirt before going to sleep the
spinning fan blade hit my arm pretty badly and broke down falling a feet away
from my toddler son, host charged me 160$ (for a fan blade) for the damage and
I had to pay it even thought I think host should be responsible for the
injuries that your unsafe conditions cause. Airbnb was on host's side stating
that I am responsible for damage, but think about it, what if host's apartment
has some electric or other problems - will I be also responsible for damages
that unsafe installation caused to their apartment? I will not use airbnb
services anymore because of that one awful experience I had. The overnight
stay that was suppose to save me money - turned into a much more expensive and
quite painful experience than what a hotel could have offered me.

~~~
grillvogel
i remember reading an article about someone who used an unsafe tire swing at
an airbnb and died, but who needs regulations? this is about sharing and
disrupting!

