Hacker News Reader

Comment by fineman | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, forgot to check this far back.

Yes, though. I am sort of saying that by asking one guy out of a crowd very obvious questions you were attempting to publicly shame him or call him on something. Were you actually asking that question to gain a data point you needed, or was it mainly commentary?

Anyways, like with Uber. I know the taxi's companies have a government granted monopoly. I don't ride with Uber because I'm ignorant of that, I ride with them almost because of that fact (and that they're just so much better of an experience). But as a rider I have nothing to lose.

With AirBnB when people are waving around fairly ludicrous threats of fines and liens on your property, who'd admit to anything when they know the other side is just looking for a scapegoat?

View on HN

My intent wasn't to "shame" him -- but if he understood the consequences of his actions (and to collect the data point).

With AirBnB when people are waving around fairly ludicrous threats of fines and liens on your property, who'd admit to anything when they know the other side is just looking for a scapegoat?

I'm not sure what threats you're referring to. The collateral damage (to property owners, neighbors ... and as we have seen from the other article posted today[1], to customers who fall on the wrong side of Airbnb's liability coverage) are very real -- so I don't see the concerns people are raising about it as "scapegoating."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10531229

The damage may be real, but "the problem of damage" is not. If my (theoretical) AirBnB guests damaged something I'm on the hook as if I damaged it myself. I don't get a free pass, so there's no externality. My strata organization can fine me for noise, wether caused by a party or an unruly tenant.

Even the way you present it is as if users of AirBnB are ripping everyone off ("consequences of his actions..."). It's just taken for granted.

And anyways, scapegoating is about the picking of a specific person to suffer for the crimes of the many. Singling out one person for something many people are doing is pretty unkind even if the thing is bad, which is debatable in this case.

Even the way you present it is as if users of AirBnB are ripping everyone off ("consequences of his actions...").

No, my observation applies strictly to those who rent their apartments in violation of their leases and/or local ordinances.

..even if the thing is bad, which is debatable in this case.

You're welcome to debate whether "the thing" (subleasing his apartment in violation of his lease -- for a huge profit) is bad or not, but to me it seems pretty clear.

But here you imply that anyone breaking a contact of adhesion is a bad person. I literally cannot rent a suite that doesn't forbid sub-letting, even though local law forbids forbidding of (reasonable) subletting.

And if we then say, well it's not bad in my city because the contract that tried to prevent it wasn't enforceable, we have to step back and ask how it's magically bad in another city with different laws.

I'd rather talk about actual harm, or rather lack thereof outside scare stories, to buildings and other tenants. No harm, no foul, and harm to abusive contracts doesn't count.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com