Airbnb is providing free housing to refugees and anyone not allowed in the US
twitter.com
twitter.com
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_St...
Only visitors from the few countries in blue or green are permitted entry automatically:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Visa_policy_of_the_USA....
I mention this without any advocacy for any position, but because some commenters seem to expect that borders are normally open. Every country has similar restrictions. Many countries don't admit US citizens without a visa.
Edit: Rayiner, I'm in favor of more and easier travel generally, I'm referring to the wording of Brian's tweet.
I wonder what these refugees who made it to the US typically do for housing once their motel money runs out? Are they on a waiting list for government housing or something? I guess they would receive welfare payments to cover rent, or just need to find work.
It seems we're entering a new era where businesses engage in political activism as well as simple commerce.
If that's the case, it's only fair that other groups, whose politics may differ from the activist-businesses', start using politics to weaken those businesses and counter their influence.
For example, it's well known that Airbnb operates under the radar of housing regulations in many localities.
Perhaps people who disagree with Airbnb's politics should organize and bring about legislation that will eliminate or severely curtail Airbnb's ability to do business in their town, county or state.
Or perhaps the Republicans, though new federal liability laws, should render Airbnb's business model non-viable at the national level.
The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade. They seek to impose social and economic penalties on those who hold political views different than their own. And they've done this, fairly secure in the knowledge that there would be few or no repercussions against them.
But I have a feeling that's starting to change.
Funny, I see it as almost the exact opposite. The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. I'd characterize the corporate response as businesses trying to operate in a cosmopolitan market, in a climate of nativist politics.
And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out. It seems we see how serious folks actually are about that idea, in these rare instances when it plays itself out in reality. Because let's also not pretend that this represents some type of long-term investment in social justice.
And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights.
It is ironic, I'll admit.
But in total war, there are no rules. You inflict suffering on your enemy by whatever means are available.
The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint because of the answer one of the family members gave to a reporter. They made an example of this family for the rest of the country to learn from: "Publicly express a political opinion we disagree with, and run the risk of being destroyed."
It's only fair that Ben Chesky and Airbnb incur a similar risk for their forays into the political arena. And they're very rich, powerful and well-connected people, who are backed by other rich, powerful and well-connected people. It would take something as powerful as a Republican-controlled federal government to do them some serious damage.
And if that happens, I'm certainly not to rush to their defense.
Would you elaborate on this? What are you referring to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
The idea that we have no further recourse other than total war is very troubling. I don't think a lot of people are willing to give up trying to work together quite yet.
Memories Pizza's owners were interviewed about Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act [0] and answered a hypothetical question by saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding, but they'd serve anyone. The reporter ran a headline, "RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service." This was false on numerous levels, but went viral, triggering a backlash.
Pizzagate is a human trafficking conspiracy with different mechanics. I guess Comet Ping Pong employees got backlash for allegations, but the similarities end there.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...
U decide - NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes w Children, etc...MUST READ!
Even after the shooting, Flynn's son tweeted explicitly:
Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it'll remain a story. The left seems to forget #PodestaEmails and the many 'coincidences' tied to it.
Here on HN there were plenty of comments if not actively promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, entertaining the possibility that it was legit. The employees of Comet Ping Pong and nearby businesses received backlash, including death threats. This escalated to a shooting by someone who took it upon himself it investigate the matter personally. Fortunately no one was shot. Pizzagate was false on numerous levels.
Both of them are misrepresentations that went viral, supported by people driven by partisan issues. I think both of them are atrocious and shouldn't be excused. They are unfortunately a symptom of the terrible state of current political discourse.
I'm genuinely interested in the distinction you draw between them.
Both of them are misrepresentations that went viral, supported
by people driven by partisan issues.
A key distinction I'd draw is that the Memories Pizza saga began due to a singular mistake in reporting that spun out of control. Had that one mistake not happened, Memories Pizza likely wouldn't have blown up. Whereas, Pizzagate became the label for an inter-related network of human trafficking conspiracies that had already gained critical mass. People that started piling on, weren't necessarily piling on false-hoods. Instead, they were piling on unverified conspiracies.
People that started piling on, weren't necessarily piling on false-hoods. Instead, they were piling on unverified conspiracies.
What's the distinction here? That on the one hand they're saying "I'm not sure, but it sure looks suspicious!" and on the other "Look what they did!" Is that a meaningful distinction?
Why the focus on a singular mistake in reporting?
At the end of it all, adding weight to Memories Pizza with a statement like
The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint because of the answer one of the family members gave to a reporter.
while dismissing Pizzagate which was arguably fueled in part explicitly by the Trump campaign (as opposed to some amorphous "left") seems grossly unfair.
I don't think I have anything to add to this. It looks as empty and partisan as the original comment, unfortunately. I commend you for stepping up and taking the time to discuss this with me. I honestly appreciate it. I'd have liked to have heard from 'rhapsodic as well.
> The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements.
Obama's a well-known politician. It would be pretty crazy to say we can't attack or protest our own government. I'd be interested in how you extracted this point from OP, because I completely missed it.
> And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out.
I also don't see the connection to government intervention. Businesses have the same rights as people to express their opinions, investors/owners willing. Obviously there's consequences to those actions, and certain SV startups are already on thin ice as far as their legal ability to operate is concerned. But it's up to the American constituency if they want to bring these issues to their representatives attention.
> And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights.
If a constituency doesn't like what a business is doing it is fully within the rights of the constituency to change to change the law. Despite the law, people tend to be really unsympathetic to wealthy businesses, and political lobbying law has been ripe to change for years.
Spare us the rhetoric, please. The only purpose it serves is to confirm your alienation.
Business mixing with activism is nothing new, although progressive businesses engaging in activism is. You'd do well to remember the recent fracas over churches and resorts choosing not to host gay weddings. That's conservative activism.
> Or perhaps the Republicans, though new federal liability laws, should render Airbnb's business model non-viable at the national level.
Such laws would be a stunning display of hypocrisy from a party that claims to be against federal interference in markets. It would also normalize (or continue the trend of normalizing) political punishment for companies that don't agree with the current administration's (non-legal) policies. Regardless of who's in power, that's not a good road to go down.
> The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade.
I hear this sentiment often. While liberals (such as myself) have benefited in terms of visibility from the last 8 years, I see no signs of "total war" on my college campus or in my neighborhood back home. There is general agreement that conservative (and Trumpian) policies are categorically bad for all Americans, but this doesn't reflect a contempt for conservatives or Trump voters as people. More than anything, there's a feeling of bewilderment stemming from the conservative party's unconservative choice of candidate.
Edit: I realized that I forgot to add this in the last paragraph:
The idea of the left engaging in "total war" is discomforting for another reason - it doesn't accurately reflect the facts of this past election. Over the last 12 months, only one party selected a candidate who hasn't made any attempts at bipartisanship. Whether or not you agreed with HRC's policies (I didn't, on many occasions), she made a conspicuous effort to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The more progressive contingent mocked her for this, but it's still a showing of good faith. No such good faith attempt was made by the Trump campaign.
It's worth noting, however, that Trump's campaign isn't really to blame for the aforementioned. He merely tapped into a talking point that the GOP has been brewing since the Watergate scandal - that the media can't be trusted, and that the party must be the source of facts. Combined with Gingrich's 1996 Contract With America and the reactionary appearance of the Tea Party in response to the Obama administration, the claim that it is the left that has waged war looks, at best, shaky.
You obviously were not in fear of career repercussions by posting your reply. I guarantee you that there are people reading your post now, who want to post a reasonable disagreement from the "conservative" viewpoint but will not because they are in (legitimate) fear of what negative affects it will have on their future employment.
That is what I read as the OPs comment. Decades of that adds up, and I certainly have noticed on HN and other industry meeting places you are allowed to express politics as long as it's that of the majority. You can explain this from the point of view of every actor in the process acting rationally in their own self interest - but it still creates a problem of defacto silencing political belief, and even more importantly only letting those radical (or rich) enough to not care about social acceptance join the conversations as a dissenting opinion.
That is troubling to me. When you only see one side feel free enough to take practical advantage of their right to free speech something is seriously wrong - and why I feel that the OP is far more correct in that this is more like war than political discourse at this point. I honestly don't know if you can walk it back, and the road that puts us on scares me.
As someone who is seen as "neutral" in the workplace, I have people from both sides dump on me in private. There is a lot more common ground than most think, but as long as people live in fear of having genuine honest political arguments I simply cannot see these trends turning around. My personal anecdote is that it's getting worse over time - not better.
Edit: spelling
Actually, I am. I'm a college student, and this account is (provably!) linked to my real-life identity. Everything I say here will have consequences for me as I enter the job market. I may be a member of the political majority (or zeitgeist), but the vast majority of companies don't want to see any sort of political writing linked to their candidates. Hello, future talent scouts!
I regret that my potential responders feel as if they have been silenced. However, they are under no obligation to reveal their real-life identities on Hacker News. Moreover, I would not be justified in blaming them for choosing to remain anonymous regardless of their political views - it's even in my interest to be anonymous.
Apart from the above, there's nothing I can do to assuage an individual's discomfort in responding to me. I don't feel qualified to comment on workplace politics - I simply don't have experience in them.
Edit:
I guess I can respond to the idea of outside speech making its way into the workplace. As a general rule, I don't think that the things people say and believe in their free time should be used against them in hiring and workplace decisions.
That being said, I understand the practical need of companies to protect themselves from both liabilities (e.g., the PR disaster of hiring a neo-Nazi) and from workplace clashes (e.g., hiring someone who genuinely believes that the immigrants on their team shouldn't be there because of their race or religion). As a society, we need to figure out how to balance these concerns in a way that eliminates the discomfort on both sides of the isle.
Yeah, what's your point? The Democratic party is not constrained by any of its purported principles when it's going after its political enemies. It's not about principles, it's about inflicting damage on your political enemies so they are afraid to do anything that might further upset you.
There might develop in this country a groundswell of people who have had a bellyful of being bullied and lectured, particularly by self-righteous billionaires. They might decide they want to see Brian Chevsky and Airbnb taken down a peg or two, and they might wake up from their stupor and realize that they have the power to do just that. I'm sure a skilled politician could convince the country of the urgent need for regulating the dangerous, shady, barely above-ground economic activities that Airbnb facilitates.
I'm sure that whoever uses Airbnb clicks through an agreement that absolves them of any liability should anyone get hurt. But perhaps a rich, heartless, greedy corporation should not be allowed to do that. A law could be passed, whereby, for example, if a woman was staying in Airbnb was raped because a former guest duplicated the key and used it to break in and rape her, she could sue Airbnb for negligence. And anyone who dared publicly oppose such a law could be smeared as anti-woman and pro-rape.
> It would also normalize (or continue the trend of normalizing) political punishment for companies that don't agree with the current administration's (non-legal) policies. Regardless of who's in power, that's not a good road to go down.
Dude, we're already down that road. Read up on what Democratic politicians did or tried to do to Chick-Fil-A, to cheers from the left, because its founder was deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes.
It will only end when the left decides they want a truce, and that will only happen when their own tactics are used against them in equal or greater amounts. There needs to be some high profile examples made.
Yes, it absolutely is. The reason the DNC is in shambles right now is because it tried to circumvent its principles and got burned in the process. For the next few years, the Democrats will be very mindful of their platform's legitimacy and reconstruction.
> It's not about principles, it's about inflicting damage on your political enemies so they are afraid to do anything that might further upset you.
This is extremely myopic. The goal of the DNC (or GOP, for that matter) is not to inflict damage as a deterrent. Arm-twisting is a part of politics, but actively sabotaging your own party platform for a brief gain is not a component of arm-twisting.
I'm not familiar with how Airbnb deals with liability (or even liability law in general), so I'll refrain from commenting on the majority of your thought experiment here. One thing that does stand out is a theme of "us versus them," where the "them" is "self-righteous billionaires." Neither end of the political spectrum has any want for billionaires, and they're all "self-righteous" in the sense that they put their money towards political action that you don't agree with. If you want to critique billionaires on the left like Chesky, be prepared to explain why he's any different from the Koch brothers (except perhaps in visibility).
> Read up on what Democratic politicians did or tried to do to Chick-Fil-A, to cheers from the left, because its founder was deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes.
I'm familiar with this[1] controversy, if that's what you mean. The closest analogue I can find in that circumstance was local politicians threatening to block construction of new Chick-Fil-As. I think that sort of response is reprehensible, but it's also a far cry from the federal government using its power to punish an individual business. In short: it's bad that they did that, but equivocating their (empty) threats with what you've suggested doesn't hold water.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...
Do you still not get it? I don't have to explain anything. I don't have to provide any arguments at all. I don't have to do anything except protect myself and stay within the law. And I don't want to "critique" billionaires on the left who use their money and high profile to push political agendas that are opposed to mine. I want to see them suffer financial consequences so they'll STFU. And I don't feel compelled to observe any principles people like you remind me of, because my opponents are not bound by any principles.
This might just be a tipping point. If Brian Chevsky continues this, I might decide to contact my congressman and senator (both Republican) and express to them how concerned I am about this newfangled website called "Airbnb" that could be running underground, illegal hotels in my nice quiet residential neighborhood (where I'm sure operating a regular hotel would be prohibited by zoning laws), and now, OMG, he's there's a chance he might be putting ISIS fighters disguised as refugees in the house next door to mine!
Yep, I'm getting mighty tired of these self-righteous billionaires.
I'm sorry you feel that way, because that's not the way it is. Principles that you don't like still have principles, and the only person being self-righteous here is you.
Using your political power in bad faith does require explanation, especially when you go on the Internet and encourage others to do the same. If you're not willing to explain or argue for your actions, then you should consider whether you truly can explain them.
OMG! You are hilarious! You still think that you can dictate rules that I'm "required" to follow! Keep it up! I love it!
The investors are probably mostly vehemently anti-Trump, like Brian Chevsky, so maybe they would take it in stride, and stand behind him, for the sake of their Sacred Principles.
Or maybe they wouldn't, it's hard to say.
It would be interesting to see how a scenario like that would play out.
The $1,000,000 Host Guarantee
Afaik, most US citizens staying at Japanese AirBnB's (for example) do not speak Japanese nor know the local culture. Do you think that's a problem as well? When I stayed at an AirBnB in Italy I knew nothing about the local culture nor spoke the language, nobody thought that was an issue.
Or is this just, you know, racism?
Incidentally, insulting people is not conducive to healthy debate. Please consider whether calling your opponent (or their actions) racist will increase our ability to persuade them to change their position, or just make them entrench their position (even against more persuasive arguments).
How are war refugees different from tourists on vacation. Amazing. You just personally contributed to wearing out the word "racist" and growing the new right wing.
Most AirBnB guests are financially secure, have a vested interest in not damaging your property, and aren't likely to be scared/stressed/traumatized.
We're choosing to activate it in response to the executive order because it goes directly against our company mission to let people belong anywhere. I'm sure PR was part of the decision but if it helps people, I'd take it at face value.
I'm sorry I fail to see what risk has now been assumed by AirBnB by having a cofounder send out a Tweet.
An action that involved real effort would have been a twee that contained a link to the AirBnB's program to help alleviate the problems faced by refugees.
The President of the US is an odd example because that runs counter to your point I believe. Trump Tweets are the ultimate symbol of vacuousness, vanity and impulse.
Yes, you do. What is AirBnB's role besides providing the platform?
Volunteers are covered under AirBNB's $1 million host insurance. That's certainly not free.
It's capitalism with a mission. A mission to let people belong. Anywhere.
Now I know why your company fights so hard to skirt regulation and taxation. Because it would impede that mission (to let people belong (anywhere.))
It's as much a gesture to make themselves and their own employees feel good. With something on the order of 40% of tech workers born outside of the United States who may be really scared right now, they may actually genuinely care about their coworkers! And this has the potential to kind of kill the whole tech industry in the US.
Every time I hear this, the number seems to go up. Please provide a citation for that number. You are saying all tech workers in the US? There's no way that is possible. You realize that there is a larger tech work force in the US than just Silicon Valley right?
1. It is controversial to employees who support Trump.
2. It is controversial to investors who support Trump.
3. It is controversial to clients who support Trump, and now might stop using AirBnB.
4. They are taking public stance against the president of the US who is known to have a vindictive streak (and his businesses are their competition). How motivated will Trump be to sign legislation that hurts AirBnB?
Do you think this is an easy decision?
Like gay rights in the 2010s (which no company would touch with a ten-feet pole in the seventies and eighties, but they make grandiose stands now that it's safe except in some backwater redneck communities), it's just the fashionable thing to do.
It's not even like the Vietnam war protests in the 60s, when mostly the young and alternative press were in favor and it was an actual risk.
Now you're on the side with mainstream press, corporate giants, most of Hollywood and show biz (even country acts), major TV channels, etc.
Is it controversial to anyone else? Even someone who supports Trump's executive order may consider it reasonable that refugees should be housed somewhere.
What I consider controversial is backing a candidate who actively helped create the current Middle-East crises, supporting the first Iraq War and then the overthrow of the Syrian government.
I'm glad Airbnb is doing this, and I think in the future it will be seen as an important show of goodwill. But the company is certainly taking a risk.
What's your metric? Doing the right thing can be great PR, and I wouldn't fault someone for considering both.
"Stayed tuned for more info"
"Stayed tune for another tweet with correct grammar."
Airbnb waives the airbnb fees, but does not pay the host for accommodations offered under the program. To me, that is not "Airbnb is providing free housing".
People who really want to help can use CouchSurfing web site instead of promoting a for profit business.
If Airbnb offered free housing it would mean they would actually pay the host to house refugees, they are not.
Surprising fact, though! Couchsurfing.com is actually a for profit organization. Their business model, however, is not the same as AirBnB.
I mean, it is good if someone in need is helped, but why now and why that wording and scope to only refugees?
>"Disaster relief is temporary and help is provided to people who suffer from external circumstances"
Refugee resettlement is a significant undertaking that often involves a year or more of living in transition. This isn't "disaster relief" in the sense that there was a flood or an earthquake and until the town can be rebuilt people are displaced. The refugees are people from Somalia, Iraq Eritrea and Afghanistan as well. They are fleeing war and oppression there as well. And sadly the situation isn't going to change in any of these places. To call it temporary is inaccurate. These disasters have endured now for the last 15 years.
>"Housing for homeless is a daily job for the government and it is different"
Except that much like the refugee crisis the help from governments isn't fixing the problem.
It's dumb because it judges private business on how it spends its resources on charity. It's also dumb because it suggests that some people are better then others and deserve the help more.
>Homelessness is just as much of a humanitarian crisis.
Homelessness is not an acute crisis, which happens and develops as quickly as execution of order of insane U.S. president. It's a problem that can and should be successfully addressed by the government by variety of means, because homelessness is fully under the control of the government (which can offer rehabilitation, medical treatment, shelters and assistance with finding jobs to homeless and social aid to people who may become homeless otherwise), while the causes forcing people to run from their homes in other countries are not.
Here is offered not the permanent settlement of refugees (for 10-15 years): there's probably no host in the world willing to give their property to a family of strangers for that long. It's a relief: the measure signed by Trump is sudden, it has limited period of action and could possibly be repealed, but now many people are stuck in limbo and have to change their plans and make a lot of decisions about their life in next few months. Easing it for them by giving a place to stay is one of the ways to help, so why not?
>Except that much like the refugee crisis the help from governments isn't fixing the problem. Statistics show that governments can be pretty effective in solving these problems and U.S. government is quite good in that sense, as I can see.
Homelessness is not acute? I think you not be using that word correctly. For people living paycheck to paycheck they are often one check away from being homeless. It can happen overnight!
Wow, homelessness is not a crisis? Can I ask where you live? Maybe you should take a stroll through the Tenderloin in San Francisco, or Skid Row in Downtown Los Angeles, or underneath the I-5 in Seattle. Then proclaim its not crisis. It's a huge crisis and I find it bizarre that you are trivializing it.
And yes, they do die, they die all the time. They die from heart diseases and diabetes and AIDs and drug overdoes. They die because they have no medical attention.
Just because there isn't a dictator involved or 24 hours cable news coverage does not mean it is any less of a crisis or there is any less suffering.
From private organizations and individuals. Thus if the problem is to large for Private Organizations and Individuals to handle collectively, then it is to hard for government as well
Housing for Homeless is also a job the government continually fails at and is infact today primary provided for by private organizations using money donated by private organizations and individuals (at least in the US)
While that's a trivial tautology, in that the government is the mechanism by which a society acts collectively, it's utterly false in the way that you meant it. Government can coordinate resource deployment more effectively than a hodgepodge of private organizations.
> Housing for Homeless is also a job the government continually fails at and is infact today primary provided for by private organizations using money donated by private organizations and individuals
Fails at how? The (few) governments that are genuinely pursuing housing the homeless seem to be doing a fine job at it. The ones that are trying to get away with lip service to the idea are, well, getting away with it.
While it is possible for the government do accomplish this in theory, it fails more often than not. Taking in huge amounts of resources including money and wasting them with inefficient bureaucracy and corruption as you have proven with the rest of your comment
I was taking issue with the assertions that government is the sole, best or even most competent venue to address a social problem like homelessness. I was taking issue the the assertion that government somehow has more resources than the Collective Individuals and Businesses it derives its resources from
I do not believe that should be the function of government, nor that is was "appointed" to do any such thing.
The role of government is protect the negative rights of individuals, government "is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." -- Frédéric Bastiat
"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property. Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice."
"You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder. With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice."
The Law - by Frédéric Bastiat
It is sad you ethics and morality have a experation date, and the quote did not replace my personal opinion as I agree 100% with the quote, that is why I quoted it.
One does not have to reinvent the wheel every time an idea needs to be rebutted, People use quotes as a shortcut to highlight their personal opinions many times in more articulate ways then they could themselves or simply to save time which is what I have done here.
i am not going to write out a 5000 word essay on the problems with government in a HN comment that about 3 people will read
(btw, somehow you forgot Bush with Iraq and Afghanistan)
You do realize that this started when US under Bush invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11.
Why not both?
they have done that before, e.g. during hurricane Mathew. "Airbnb is brokering free housing" probably would be a more accurate phrasing, since it is obviously the hosts providing the housing. Airbnb just provides their platform for free.
This case is temporary, and hopefully short term - homeless people need a permanent, long term solution. Furthermore, for people like legal US residents who are temporarily locked away from their home, shelter generally solves their problems as they need just shelter; while for homeless people it wouldn't solve their root cause of homelessness which generally comes out to either unemployability, addictions or mental illness.
This case also involves much, much less people that the homeless population. In essence, they're choosing to help a smaller problem where they could make a difference instead of a much larger issue that's intractable by those means.
I wonder how many of the people protesting the entry ban will offer their flats for free to the refugees?
I mean, it might work if airbnb and trump properties share the same customer base... which they might. But then it's more likely to attract people looking for free accommodation rather than customers of Trump properties.
Besides any of Trump's customers who want to make a statement have likely already taken their money elsewhere.
But then again I'm not from the US and I know nothing of Trump or Airbnb, so maybe it would work.
Eh... I have no idea why I started writing this comment :-/ .
How much longer do you think AirBnB's regulation flouting would last if they went to war with the President?
Brian Chesky and the entire Airbnb team are showing America at its very best: forward-looking, innovative, diverse, multicultural and. The contrast with the Trump-type people -- primarily angry, insular, bitter old people who are terrified of brown people and still live within 10 minutes of their high school -- could not be more striking.
It's easy to pretend you're hospitable and generous when you're not paying the toll of your actions. You're not providing "free housing", the actual owners of the houses are. This is a unilateral announcement because you don't know if hosts will accept.