
Airbnb evicts users planning to attend white nationalist event - gnicholas
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Airbnb-Evicts-Users-Planning-to-Attend-White-11740721.php
======
gnicholas
I'm pretty surprised Airbnb has done this. This move will draw further
attention to their lack of adherence to "common carrier" laws, which prevent
hotels (and some other types of businesses) from treating customers in this
way. It may be that Airbnb is not subject to these laws as written, but by
taking stands like this it becomes more likely that the laws will be amended
to force them to comply.

Taking a stand like this will also make Airbnb less popular in some circles. I
would guess that this won't just be among white nationalists, but also in
conservative circles more generally.

Grounding this decision in the commitment to "accept people regardless of
their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender
identity, sexual orientation, or age" will lead many conservatives - and even
some moderates - to wonder what group or behavior will be banned next. Can
someone be booted for having tweeted something that is racist, ageist, or
sexist? What about statements that are grounded in religious beliefs, but
which violate one of the other protected classes, such as sexual orientation?

The Airbnb community statement is very broad, and it is now clear that if
Airbnb determines that you have violated it, they are willing to take far-
reaching actions against you. For some potential customers - and also for
voters who are asked to consider "Airbnb taxes" \- this revelation will raise
a red flag.

EDIT: man, this post dropped like a rock from the front page. I'd be curious
to know why - perhaps too high of a comment / point ratio?

I thought HN was especially careful with news that is negative/controversial
about YC companies, to avoid the perception of partiality.

~~~
nxsynonym
I agree. I believe It should be left up to the hosts, if anyone, to decide who
can stay in a private residence.

Deactivating user profiles based on anything other than a breach of user
agreement is ridiculous.

~~~
danesparza
The article points out that's exactly what Airbnb has done:

“In 2016 we established the Airbnb Community Commitment reflecting our belief
that to make good on our mission of belonging, those who are members of the
Airbnb community accept people regardless of their race, religion, national
origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or
age,” Airbnb shared in a statement. “We asked all members of the Airbnb to
affirmatively sign on to this commitment.”

~~~
nindalf
Was this agreement part of the EULA that no one reads? Not saying it's less
valid, but it does feel a bit weird invoking the EULA. I thought users and
software firms had an unwritten agreement that they could add anything they
felt like to the EULA as long as they didn't actually invoke it.

~~~
icebraining
Nope, it was a page (or popup?) with a short and visible text and forced you
to Accept or Decline:

[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/553a1999e4b01dde7b6bc...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/553a1999e4b01dde7b6bccdb/t/58ad9de2f7e0ab81132aedca/1487773187075/?format=750w)

------
ptero
If correct, this is very bad. Applying a political filter to deny lodging to
people who are visiting for a purpose the corporation does not approve of is a
very bad idea.

I could understand if _hosts_ who objected to renting out their own place to
someone based on the renter's beliefs that they strongly disagree with; but
even this is borderline and the corporation acting as a moral police is, to
me, a very bad path for a society to start on.

~~~
freehunter
Disagree. This happens everywhere, all the time, on all levels of the
political spectrum. Why is it only bad now that the left is doing it? Why
wasn't it "a very bad path" when Hobby Lobby make the government give them an
exemption from providing full health care to their employees? Why isn't is "a
very bad path" when companies fire employees for being gay, or not hiring
employees because they are black or hispanic or a woman? Is it a "very bad
path" when a company refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, or when a
church refuses to have a ceremony for a gay couple?

Why is it you always hear people saying "this is crossing a line" when the
left does something that the right has been doing for years?

~~~
jasonkostempski
Is it really useful to slap a left or right label on those examples? I heard
plenty of uproar about all the "right" stories you referenced and all the
response were the same as the "left" stories; "well, it's a free country and
it's their right to do that but it's gonna offend some people and might
ultimately be bad for business."

There are organizations people tend to view as "above all that non-sense"
until they do something stupid, then you see phrases like "very bad path",
"slippery slope", "fine line". Then there are organizations people expect
might take extreme stances on certain topics and no one is really surprised
when they do it. People still talk about it when it happens but it quickly
dissolves into something like "well, I'm never going to convince them what
they're doing is bad and I was never going to buy their cake anyway. Best I
can do is not be that way myself."

If there's anything to polarize on it's probably reach of the organization.
Actions by organizations that have no direct effect on most peoples lives
won't get talked about for very long. When it's a organization that provides a
global service with little competition, people get more concerned.

But even reach isn't a good divider. Most organizations don't accomplish
global reach without first promising things like equality and fairness, but
some do, some even promise to do "bad" things. So maybe people's reactions to
events like this are more about broken promises.

~~~
freehunter
I'm trying to highlight two things: one this isn't "a bad path" that we're
"starting on". We've been here for a long time. The second thing is, if you
think this is "just starting", either you haven't been paying attention or you
don't think those other things are a "dangerous path". Basically he's saying
that a company refusing to do business with a white supremacist is crossing a
line that was not crossed when gays, blacks, hispanics, or women had the exact
same treatment.

This amounts to one thing: if you're drawing your line in the sand at the
persecution of neo-nazis knowing full well that gays, minorities, and women
are on the "no protection" side of that line, you might be a neo-nazi
yourself.

There is no question on what type of outrage ptero is expressing. The only way
to read that comment is that he's disappointed that people he agrees with are
finally being persecuted.

------
koolba
This seems perfectly fine to me. They're a private company and can decide
which customers they want to serve and to which they want to refuse service.

Of course if you allow this you'll also need to accept that a baker can refuse
to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

~~~
ko27
> need to accept that a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

White nationalists are not a Federal protected class, homosexuals are.

This whole thread is full of people who are tying relativize every kind of
behavior. Not everything is subjective, our civilization has guidelines on
what's accepted as moral and what is immoral.

~~~
islanderfun
But some members of society find homosexuals immoral _. "Civilization
guidelines" could deprive members of their freedom.

_Devil's advocate. Consenting adults should do as they please.

~~~
danesparza
As long as those folks that find homosexuals immoral don't actually
discriminate against homosexuals, I think we're fine.

~~~
islanderfun
Live and let live. That would be an ideal out come.

------
darrmit
It is pretty amusing to see the script flipped here. The very same people
saying the baker shouldn't have to bake the cake are now saying the rental
service should be FORCED to allow them to stay.

Good luck with that.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
I don't see anyone calling for the government to force Airbnb to let these
people use their service.

------
bolololo12
Are they evicting leftist groups demolishing cities like they did in Hamburg
couple weeks ago?

~~~
rdtsc
Not sure why you were downvoted. "Of course I like my city to be destroyed, we
need more of that".

I remember when during inauguration those brats wearing all black came and
burned cars, trash cans in the street and a bunch of other vandalism.

Though I think they ended up with pretty steep charges, it turns out rioting
in DC is not like in other cities and carries pretty heavy penalties.

~~~
Akujin
You're not sure why he's being down voted? Hmm.

1\. He used whataboutism

2\. Anti capitalism anarchist protesters aren't Nazis and aren't calling for
the genocide of entire ethnic groups.

Get this through your dumb fucking skull: Nazis aren't conservatives and don't
deserve any protection.

We used to shoot them dead. They are getting off easy.

~~~
freehunter
>whataboutism

I have a real problem with this term, especially as it's now being used by the
alt-right to shut down any conversation. It's completely fine to say "this
side does this, that side does that". It's completely fine to point out that
other people have flaws as well. Not every mention of the opposing viewpoint
is whataboutism. Whataboutism is a diversionary tactic designed to deflect the
conversation away from your flaws and onto someone else's flaws.

It's super easy to shut down whataboutism. I say "you're a bad person", they
come back and say "what about these other bad people" and I say "yes, they're
bad too but let's keep talking about you right now". If they say "no no that's
not fair, these other guys are bad", that's whataboutism. If the conversation
continues like normal, then it's just a normal conversation.

~~~
Akujin
You're wrong. The conversation doesn't just "move on". Derailing it from the
get go with bullshit points that have nothing to do with the original
discussion is detrimental in in of itself.

It's an old soviet tactic now being used by internet trolls. Those of us that
know history see right through it and roll our eyes.

~~~
freehunter
The problem is "whataboutism" is the new Godwin's Law. It's used to stop any
conversation that the other person doesn't like. It had a good run until the
alt-right realized they could use it too, and use it anywhere and everywhere.
And when they use it, the other person has to stop talking, for exactly the
reasons you mentioned. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card for neo-nazis and
internet trolls.

I was having a conversation about the lack of response from the president on
the Minnesota mosque bombing the other day and mentioned that they had time to
talk about the Bowling Green Massacre story that was made up out of whole
cloth by the administration, and the guy I was talking to said "oh so
whataboutism is your only response?" His argument was basically "if you
mention anything other than the exact topic we're talking about right now,
it's whataboutism and your argument is invalid". But that's not true, and it's
not even a valid use of the word "whataboutism". It's been co-opted and
corrupted by these fascists who realized that if we use it, the conversation
stops. So they can use it to stop the conversation too.

You have to understand that with a lot of these people, the conversation will
never move on. You try to shift the conversation back, and if they don't let
it then _you_ move on. But crying "whataboutism!" and expecting something
magical to happen... it doesn't. It won't. It never will again. They've
learned that tactic and incorporated it into their strategy and it has lost
all of its power. Now whenever I see someone using the word "whataboutism" to
shut down a conversation, I can't help but wonder if they themselves aren't an
alt-right fascist troll.

Remember when Godwin's Law could control a conversation on the Internet? But
now if you say it everyone just laughs at you. That's where "whataboutism" is
very quickly heading.

------
interfixus
" _those who are members of the Airbnb community accept people regardless of
their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender
identity, sexual orientation, or age_ "

Not - it may be noted - regardless of their political stance.

~~~
ko27
You truly believe White nationalists "accept people regardless of their race"?

~~~
interfixus
Who on Earth suggested anything about what I truly believe or not? I quote,
and I point out a specific omission.

------
ddoran
I am an occasional Airbnb host. I am happy for Left/Right, Gay/Straight,
religious/areligious, black/white/all people to stay in my home, however I
utterly reject anyone who discriminates against others for any of these
reasons, particularly if they are using my house in order to exercise their
discrimination.

AirBnB's Community Commitment gives me comfort and it is something I am happy
to see them enforce.

------
whiddershins
I need more details. The article says it was lodgers, not hosts, who are
affected.

But air bnb's stated policy of non discrimination is far more directly related
to hosts, and in that manifestation is consistent with public Accomodations
legislation.

However, denying lodging to someone based on their beliefs is dangerously in
conflict with the same legislation.

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

~~~
ko27
Nobody is taking their freedom. They just don't want to do business with them.

