Does this logic work with other middleman services as well?
Some examples:
* Buy high priced item from (high ranked, but does it really matter?) individual on Ebay, turns out to be fake. Complain that this is Ebay's fault.
* Make some kind of deal on Craigslist. Deal falls through. Claim all the fault of Craigslist.
Aside from the shift in time and the "orgy" angle, the situations are identical. Either HN has dramatically changed, or the collective attitude toward this kind of thing has shifted to a decidedly anti-host (or pro-company?) sentiment. Interesting.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813956
[2] More commentary here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7407796
People react to a story based on the total context, not entirely on the facts. In the previous story, (if I remember correctly), it was presented as an ordinary individual who had their place ransacked and now was afraid to live there. There was an outpouring of support due to the individual being so sympathetic and the case being delivered in such a desperate tone.
In this case the guy comes of (true or not) as entitled and antagonistic.
----
That said, a careful reading of the situations shows its not factually indentical.
The previous case was a home-owner. AirBnB now protects people who own the property from damage caused when leasing.
This case is a renter, who was essentially running a hotel room out of his apartment--an act against his lease, and perhaps even illegal in his area.
http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/violated-travele...
She never said anything about being an owner. As far as I can tell, she was a renter. Certainly, nobody knew if she rented or bought at the time the post hit HN.
Basically, what you're saying is that you don't like the guy's tone, so you think he doesn't deserve sympathy. Glad you don't work for AirBnB customer support.
> Glad you don't work for AirBnB customer support.
To be honest, I don't think he deserves sympathy since I don't know the full story (i.e. what exactly was damaged). But were I customer support, I'd be happy to hold his hand and have a cry with him because well.... that's the job of customer support.
While I'm actually with you in that I think the apartment owner shouldn't have rented his apartment out, you have to understand that AirBnB's business model would be completely destroyed if this kind of thing consistently happens.
The reason is that a random individual apartment owner has no way to independently vet someone trying to use AirBnB to sublet their apartment. AirBnB is the party with the aggregated information, not the apartment owner.
If apartment/house owners see this business turn into "you have a 999/1000 chance of making $XXX and a 1/1000 chance of sustaining $XX,XXX in damages you are personally liable for, plus eviction", what do you think is going to happen to AirBnB?
I'm not sure whether or not AirBNB should ever have come thus far. They're essentially offloading all the unpleasantness and liabilities of the hotel business on random schmucks that rent out their flats.
There are two ways this could play out. AirBNB will have to start playing by the rules that everybody else plays by, or they'll completely deregulate the Hotel business and we'll all be in comment-spam ratinghell while planning trips in the future.
Exactly. The only question is whether they can convince the necessary number of "schmucks" that they're not actually schmucks.
Well, that's the crux of this business; whose responsibility is it, then? If AirBnB facilitates the deal, the liability is at least partially theirs. Otherwise, what's the point of the service? I may as well post to randoms in the classifieds.
And your two examples are nearly identical, but in the first case, eBay WILL take responsibility for the sale, and if you have paid through their payment service (Paypal) you can dispute the transaction. I've done it, and it was seamless.
I'd understand if he wrote: "Yeah, so I rented a place out on AirBnb and the guy renting was dishonest and I got burned; moral of the story: check out your renters." That would be totally rational.
Instead we got: "Yeah, so I rented a place out on AirBnb and the guy renting was dishonest and I got burned; moral of the story: AirBnb is a bad company because this is someones fault, and if it's not me (it couldn't be me) and it's not the renter (he's scary), then it must be AirBnb's!"
https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/1854409?checkin=03%2F26%2F2014&...
If I had a website that openly facilitated illegal transactions (say, of cell phone jammers), and someone caused damages with an item they bought there, I couldn't throw up my hands and say it's not my problem.
AirBnB vouched for the trustworthiness of this "David" fellow through their "Verified" badge. This is also their duty and responsibility as the facilitator between renters and rentees. And the process is the same on eBay--if your deal somehow turns out be less than legitimate, eBay will step in and attempt to resolve the situation, as the facilitator between buyer and seller. It is not that it is eBay or AirBnB's "fault", but they do have a reputation to uphold by being a responsive and trustworthy deal facilitator.
Also, craigslist is a listing of classified, and does not facilitate or participate in deals in any way. It is a flawed comparison.
If they're not prepared to do that, they don't have a business model.
The point of this story is that Airbnb's verification system is worth about as much as Craigslist's (i.e. there isn't one) and isn't as good as eBay's.
So they need to work on that, and until they do, it might be an idea to not rent out your apartment on there unless you're really, really, really sure you know who you're renting it out to.