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.
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.”
What does it mean to "accept people" though? Does it mean to act in a non-discriminatory fashion specifically in the context of using Airbnb? Or does it extend to discriminatory opinions held in general, even if not acted upon in the context of using Airbnb?
I think it can only be the former as the latter could easily clash with religions being included in the list of protected groups. There could be (and in fact there are) religious beliefs that are clearly discriminatory against other religions, world views (like atheism) or sexual orientations.
The only way to not ban someone holding such a religious belief is for Airbnb to say, OK, we don't care what you believe, but in your role as an Airbnb guest or host, you must act in a way that is non-discriminatory even if that goes against your beliefs.
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.
Sure anyone should be able to decide who stays in a private residence. AirBnb is not stopping them from choosing another vehicle for advertising.
If Airbnb has a non discrimination clause stating that you can't advertise on their platform if you discriminate, is it really such a leap to think someone advertising for a place to stay for a White Nationalist convention may discriminate?
Practically will the effect be all that strong? It doesn't seem like a winning argument to say "voters: let's charge Airbnb taxes and also make sure we're welcoming to neo-nazis!"
I agree with you, everybody here is ignoring the circumstances of this case and is trying to generalize it to include something that AirBnB is not doing.
Many here are tasked in their day jobs with implementing vaguely defined requirements. This feels like just such a case and thus the responses indicate a few of the possible ways one could take this entity goal and implement actionable rules.
The bottom line challenge I think AirBnB has going forward is how far are they willing to go in researching their customers? Will they only be reactive in case of organized events or can a single person get evicted based on social media posts?
It's easy to say case-by-case unless you're talking about an organization dealing with thousands of bookings per day. Unequal application of a policy can sometimes have worse implications than no policy at all. And it's hard to see how the policy can possibly be enforced uniformly.
Regarding why its not on the front page (but is quite high in /active) I imagine it's because people have been flagging it due to a kind of tiredness from the flurry of other political submissions.
It'll start getting really interesting once someone inevitably finds Airbnb users who've publicly proclaimed their hatred for whites, or men, or heterosexuals, or all of the above - because of course that's just as much a violation of the ToS but they'd basically be seen as alt-right supporters if they banned anyone for that. Definitely lose-lose.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I am not saying that what Airbnb did was illegal. It probably was not (although I am not at all sure). But, to me, this is a horrible business decision. Left or right is not the point here -- the corporation denying the lodging based on the customer's political views, whichever color those are, makes me put it my lower on my list of travel options.
If a hotel manager wants to ask me about my political views on arrival and, based on this, decide if he lets me stay I will not stay in this hotel and I suspect that a lot of other customers will do the same.
And Hobby Lobby denying healthcare to their employees puts them further down my list of stores to shop at. Chick-fil-a donating money to keep gay marriage illegal puts them further down my list of restaurants to eat at. Hell, Tesla canceled a customer's order because the customer said something negative about the company.
Corporations have literally always done this. The question remains, why is this just now an issue for you? Why is now the point where you draw a line? Because if you ignore all the times companies have been shitty to liberals and/or normal human beings but draw a line in the sand when a company is shitty to a god damned actual Nazi fascist white supremacist, it makes me question a few things.
Left or right does actually seem to be the issue, because you really seem to be okay with every other instance of this happening, until it happens to a nazi.
Yes, corporations should be unfettered in their pursuit of profit at the expense of their employees and the public good. Corporations engaging in moral behavior is clearly unethical and sets a dangerous precedent!
> Is it much different from Hacker News deciding what sort of content is appropriate for this forum?
Bad example, because one goes to HN specifically for curated content.
> Would you be opposed to an airbnb clone that only rented to white supremacists?
Lets run a few variations of this, and try and find a consistent position: Would I be opposed to HN deciding what content is allowed? To a nazi Airbnb clone? To the New York Times deciding what they publish? To every newspaper in Nebraska colluding on which stories they allow? In secret? What if the top 80% of websites, by views, do so? What if Facebook does it? What if your local car dealership doesn't want to sell to communists? What if Toyota doesn't? What if an alliance of car manufacturers representing 98% of global car sales doesn't? What if a taxi service with 5 cabs to it's name refuses to drive Hillary supporters? What if it controls every cab in New York? What if Intel requires you to use their own Linux distro, and bricks your chip otherwise (they warn you before you buy)?
In all these cases, the answer is the same - it's only troublesome once the company, corporation, shadowy behind-the-scenes cabal, whatever, gets too big. Once going to a competitor is no longer viable, or very difficult, or something you don't even know you need to do (sure it's easy to go to death2amerikkka.ru/imperialistPigAggressionInSouthAmerica/latestNews/, but you don't know of the site, and have no reason to distrust the CNN/Fox talking heads parroting the government's position).
So to answer your second question - no (at least not beyond 'they shouldn't have done that, but I guess it's their right'), but only if there are viable alternatives for renters. When not using their service becomes very disadvantageous, I'd be very opposed. Of course being opposed doesn't say much - a better question is, what should be done about it? The answer is known, but neglected - fire up the dusty antitrust laws, and do what was done to Bell and Standard Oil - don't just prevent mergers, but break up the companies.
Sorry for the wall of text - I try to be concise, but failed in this case. Maybe next time ask easier questions.
"14.1 You are solely responsible for compliance with any and all laws, rules, regulations, and Tax obligations that may apply to your use of the Airbnb Platform. In connection with your use of the Airbnb Platform, you will not and will not assist or enable others to:
...
discriminate against or harass anyone on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, physical or mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age or sexual orientation, or otherwise engage in any abusive or disruptive behavior"
I don't use AirBnB but doesn't the service cater to people who only want to rent to "their kind" of people? What is AirBnB going to say to a host who only rents to college educated couples over thirty years old? Isn't that the whole AirBnB business model?
> 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.
Source? I'm pretty sure sexual orientation is not (currently) a federally protected class. The statute is regarding "sex" as in gender.
EDIT: GC comment verifies my understanding. It's not a uniform application of the statute and depends on the Federal agency involved (ex EEO vs Education).
The EEOC interpretation is one of many (and only applies within the purview of the Employment Equal Opportunity Commission, so not here). As a counterpoint, the current administration's Dept. of Education is taking a different stance on this question. And neither SCOTUS nor any other binding authority has weighed in.
That would be ideal but as a general principle for all of society it is too weak in my view, especially from the idea of class, power structure, coercion and historicism, the principle that to understand society one must look at its history rather than the more limited scope of thousands of isolated interactions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> if they evict right wing groups meeting, why don't they do the same to left wing anarchist groups?
They were not evicted for being right-wing; they were evicted for violating the Community Pledge: in order to use the platform, you have to agree to "accept people regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age."
Plenty of right-wing people can do that just fine. Plenty of left-wing people cannot.
Unite the Right has taken it as a point of doctrine not to "punch right," by which they mean that whether or not they personally believe in rejecting people based on race, sex, religion, cultural origin, etc., they will march with those who do against a perceived "common enemy." This is not common right-wing behavior; in fact the Republican primaries featured serious questions on whether to kill baby Hitler, taking it as granted that killing adult Hitler was a moral imperative. Unite the Right would ally with adult Hitler to win the war against their "common enemy," and then maybe consider rationally debating him later.
The ability to follow the Community Pledge isn't a left/right distinction, and you're misrepresenting the right wing (although probably not the "alt-right") by claiming that it is.
> The true is I believe they should not involve themselves in politics as it never ends good.
Airbnb is inextricably involved in politics because their entire business model is literally illegal in most of the places they operate. The process of convincing politicians to change that is called politics.
I once saw an apartment for rent where host mentioned only vegans are allowed. I wonder if accepting people regardless of their food preference should be part of Community Pledge.
Would they evict the lesbians who've been tossing Jews out of pride parades (which is no joke, it happened in my town)? Or do they evict the Jews?
Shouldn't they evict all Pride March leadership since Black Lives Matter have been stopping Pride parades due to allegations of systematic racism? Or do they evict BLM for stopping Pride parades?
Would they evict the professors of Evergreen who students claim are guilty of systematic oppression? Or do they evict the students who were patrolling campus with baseball bats?
Shouldn't they evict all white men, since all white men are guilty of participating in colonialism and patriarchy? Or do they evict all white men, since white men supposedly got Trump elected (something the statistics very much dispute- Trump made gains in several demographics)?
This is a very slippery slope in these times.
If the leaders of AirBnB were the white nationalists, and they were tossing out their opponents following white nationalist policy, everyone would say the white nationalists deserve harsh retribution.
The policy itself doesn't matter. The politics do. And yes, AurBnB has to play politics. I'd wager they saw a couple markets where they hope to keep a foothold for being "the good guys" instead of an illegal business in violation of various local ordinances on innkeeping.
This is really just an attempt to inject Twitter drama into the discussion. Obviously, it is not a common position among lesbians to eject people from their parades for carrying Jewish pride flags† --- one way you know that is it was a lesbian who was ejected from the parade.
You're criticizing one small LGBT subgroup, but misrepresenting them as the whole LGBT community. Which in the context of this discussion is just an attempt to muddy the water. Please don't do that.
(that, by the way, is what got them ejected --- being perceived as vocally pro-Israel --- not "for being Jewish". Plenty of Jewish people are anti-Israel.)
> in fact the Republican primaries featured serious questions on whether to kill baby Hitler, taking it as granted that killing adult Hitler was a moral imperative.
It's not worth to take part in such worthless philosophical debates in my opinion. They do not add anything to the society or solve any important modern day problems.
> their entire business model is literally illegal in most of the places they operate.
If that's true their website should be shut down in countries where it's banned.
> It's not worth to take part in such worthless philosophical debates in my opinion. They do not add anything to the society or solve any important modern day problems.
I agree, but I was not defending these debates, just giving evidence for my claim that a common position in the mainstream right wing is that Hitler is worth fighting.
> If that's true their website should be shut down in countries where it's banned.
I agree with this too, but law enforcement is not always effective at stopping well-funded companies blitzing through regulations (VCs call this phenomenon "disruption").
Any kind of extremism, be it from right or from left, should be banned and legally prosecuted in any civilized and democratic country, by the law enforcement and not by individuals or private companies.
If someone destroys your property during a protest or if he/she puts your family in potential physical danger, this person is an extremist in my book.
Seems that some people take my comment too literally. I meant in a DEMOCRATIC society. If you are living in a Dictatorship all bets are off.
OK then, but who draws the lines on what's extremism?
Do you have to want to overthrow the government? What about just heavily reform it?
What lines on immigration policy would put you under prosecution, Total ban? Muslim Ban? Point system?
I have no support at all for white nationalism but it's insane and counterproductive for big "service-like" companies to be enforcing their own political correctness through bans.
> OK then, but who draws the lines on what's extremism?
They do, considering it's their business.
It's not as abstract as you think it is. This clearly violates their ToS.
"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,"
> I have no support at all for white nationalism
But you do when a private company doesn't want to do business with them? I am sure you will try to generalize this incident as giving fuel to potential future oppression against humanitarians, revolutionists and what not... but that is only relevant if they really do that in practice, and they don't.
> What lines on immigration policy would put you under prosecution, Total ban? Muslim Ban? Point system?
You are projecting your own thoughts on my previous comment. I honestly had no idea it can interpreted like this ... read it again and if you see any suggestion that I would condone any kind of ban based on religion, gender or skin color I will ban myself from HN.
The problem is: who gets to define extremism? It may seem pretty clear cut to you in this particular instance, but it's a slippery slope. In the US, Republicans may want to label Democrats as extremists, and vice versa. We've already seen it happen with groups like Black Lives Matters. This is why -- in the US -- we have the first amendment and defend it so vigorously (ideally).
"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.
Just because somebody wants something to be political doesn't mean it actually is. I can call for a law saying people who drink beer out of green bottles are evil and brown beer bottles are the right solution and I spend millions of dollars campaigning to lock up people who drink out of green bottles, is that suddenly a political stance? No, it just means I have too much time on my hands and maybe even have some mental illness.
White nationalism is not a political stance. It is hatred and bigotry. Just because racists want it to be political doesn't mean it is.
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.
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.
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.