> Besides liability for damages incurred by the guest, hosts are also probably on the hook for liability should the guest be injured (or worse) while staying in your place.
Good point. I'd imagine hotels are required by law in most jurisdictions to take out public liability insurance.
Then there is the issue of who is responsible for ensuring that properties are actually safe for rental on Airbnb (i.e., no exposed electrical wires, slippery steps, etc.)
Even if you don't want to believe EJ's account of the story, Chesky himself made the claim on camera in May (a month after Troy's incident occurred) that there have been "no major problems" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etaUBLkRteA&feature=chann...
I don't see how either of these cases can be viewed as "minor", personally.
It could also be the case that the founders running Airbnb have a mildly sociopathic personality style. (I don't mean that in a derogatory sense - I'm calling it a personality style, not a personality disorder... while such a personality style might represent a disability when it comes to forming intimate personal relationships, it would be an advantage when hustling to get a startup off the ground.) Of course, when such individuals are called on for a display of genuine empathy, compassion, or humanity, they will be left feeling confused and won't know what hit them - they might even start to believe that they are being victimized.
This is the creepiest thing I've ever heard. She's had her personal space and privacy violated in a terrible way, and you're passing around her contact details? Did you ask her permission?
> She's had per personal space and privacy violated in a terrible way, and you're passing around her contact details?
I passed her contact information to the one guy that I think can keep his head cool enough to solve this in a way that is beneficial to her. You may disagree with that but that's fine with me.
> She mentioned in both blog posts that she is trying to keep her personal details private.
Yes, and I helped her doing just that by pointing out which parts of her blog allow people to figure out who she is.
> Yes, and I helped her doing just that by pointing out which parts of her blog allow people to figure out who she is.
Maybe you think you are doing the right thing - but think about this from EJ's perspective: A stranger contacts her and points out all the ways she can be identified from her blog... he then passes her contact details on to an investor in Airbnb. He goes on hacker news and comments about how easy it was to identify her.
If I was in her position, feeling vulnerable and suspicious, I'd start to wonder whether your "helpful advice" was in fact a veiled suggestion that she should take down her blog post, or face the risk of being publicly identified and humiliated.
jacquesm just said that it wasn't a veiled suggestion at all. He pointed out to her that she was publicly identifying herself already.
Considering that EJ was already in communication with AirBnB customer service and CEO, and has been publicly asking for more attention from AirBnB, she wouldn't be too surprised that another one of the founding leaders would get involved.
> I passed her contact information to the one guy that I think can keep his head cool enough to solve this in a way that is beneficial to her. You may disagree with that but that's fine with me.
PG has a vested interest here -- he's an investor, not a neutral party.
I trust PG to be able to overcome his bias and do the right thing here and have every reason to believe that he can and possibly will. Yes, he's an investor, he's also a human being.
Hearing both sides of the story is crucial in that, as long as he's hearing just one side he probably should not be commenting on this.
The alternative is that he will let AirBNB solve this by themselves, based on the data available so far I think that will not work out well.
Based on the data so far, many people would agree that EJ seem spooked by he fast moving world of innovative startups, social networking, and venture capitalism. Based on the fact that she has been saying how terrified she's been to release even the basic info about the situation yet didn't have the foresight to remove past entries from her blog, I'd say it is also safe to say that she is naive about the state of privacy in the online world.
So you take it upon yourself to not only track her down, but give her personal details to someone with a financial stake in what has been described as a billion dollar hyperstartup.
Think about that, from her perspective and from the perspective of her sympathizers.
We saw yesterday how she interpreted what may have been the sincerest of emails by a cofounder to get coffee as a calculated uncaring attempt to quiet her.
And now she receives correspondence from someone with no apparent connection to airbnb who, btw, sent her info to a well known backer of a billion dollar company.
What the hell do you think she'll do? Spend an hour siting on whatever couch she has managed to find for temp residence and read yours and pg's HN profiles and threads and see that you and pg are indeed standup guys??
Look at her past behavior She has already insinuated that airbnb has tried to overtly intimidate her, a tactic, that until yesterday, very few of HN readers would have thought possible of the savvy founders of airbnb.
And now you have faith that this reluctant participant in the ycombinator world will give you the full benefit of the doubt and take the time to learn from secon hand sources that you're not some creep?
When journalists new to this whole debacle come across this thread, how much benefit of the doubt do you think you'll receive?
Do you think that there's a way to fit in "Some hackernews user tracks down fearful airbnb victim and gives her contact info to airbnb backer" AND "airbnb backer had proven track recor of bring unbiased and kindly" into 140 characters.
People thought EJ was naive. I think you've set a new bar.
I disagree. Giving EJ PG's details, and putting the onus on the victim to reach out to PG, is (IMHO) the kind of attitude that got us here. I think this is what happened with AirBnB too: they probably gave her a number to call "if you need anything", and then just moved on.
The victim shouldn't have to go around knocking on doors to get help. Sometimes it's nice if the help comes to victim on its own volition.
In this case the 'someone' happens to be PG, a complete stranger to EJ and somebody with financial stake in airbnb, who got EJ's contact info from another complete stranger on the internet?
The victim also shouldn't be stalked or contacted by investors in the company that has already intimidated her and whose gross negligence hampered a speedy resolution to the crimes that were committed against her.
"it is about... removing people who spell their names in weird ways, like using upside-down characters"
Here's to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently.
The ones who dare to spell their names with upside down characters.
The ones whose parents didn't give them enough attention so they have to spend their days testing the boundaries of internet communities and then throwing a fit because their wingding character isn't supported.
That's a pretty flippant attitude, considering people are losing access to critical stuff like all their emails for making the mistake of violating some rule buried in a 20 page TOS.
I like his emphasis on kindness. Imagine a forum where you could rate a post on a separate dimension of kindness/ meanness (alongside rating on the usual vague dimension of "like/ dislike")... with restriction of privileges for people who are persistently mean. :)
