If your interest is Airbnb or discrimination then skip this article.
Try buying a car without agreeing to arbitration - you can't.
It's a problem. But Airbnb is not the right company to use to talk about it.
> Often arbitration clauses are invoked in cases where consumers feel they have been financially slighted—seeing charges on their phone bills for services they never wanted, for instance—but the Times investigation found arbitrations used in more serious cases of medical malpractice, theft, hate crimes, and discrimination. The Airbnb situation highlights how far the practice extends.
Other companies (like car dealers) have used arbitration for smaller scoped purposes, but Airbnb is essentially opting out of the 14th amendment.
Why?
(For example look at some of the comments in this thread that are talking about discrimination, when the topic is ostensibly arbitration. It should be two separate discussions.)
Either talk about it in a Vacuum (without any particular company), or at least pick a case that is more "pure", i.e. unequivocally the company's responsibility.
Mixing two topics, and then solving the wrong one is a very common and effective debate and political tactic.
It's a strange world where Air B&B can use arbitration to shield themselves and then when this tactic is pointed out people say "no you can't talk about that, it muddies the waters". The arbitration is absolutely relevant.
I did. I refused to sign the arbitration agreement said I was walking out. They didn't like it but didn't like losing a sale even more.
You realize the "it" in your sentence is "arbitration", while the rest of what you wrote is about "discrimination"?
Your sentence is a perfect example of why Airbnb is exactly the wrong company to use to talk about arbitration.
(This article is about arbitration. I'm not implying people shouldn't talk about discrimination, just that the headline is quite misleading.)
Race isnt specified and many user profiles obscure the face. Instabook books automatically without host approval.