Whether its illegal sublets or unlicensed minicabs, you can't operate a business designed to evade regulation without that attitude eventually permeating its entire corporate culture. Welcome to "disruption".
/s
Banks have big moats of enormous regulation that any would-be upstart competitor would have abide by. Hence they are more 'legal' just counted by number of regulations they comply with. Banks ain't great places to work for.
(But I don't think you can build a good rule out of that. I think what determines a great culture more is how high the opportunity cost is for employees to just go and get a new job that at least as good. Googlers can just walk away, and get a decent job anywhere else: so Google has to treat them nicely. Retail assistants in depressed East Germany in the 90s had almost no other options, especially since legislation basically forced companies to pay above market clearing rate; you can imagine what bosses got away with on such a captive labour supply.)
Small criminal groups can be fine, because the small size tends towards better working habits. Large criminal groups have a reputation for brutality.
Very different effects come in to play once you have layers of middle management.
While I agree that not all things illegal is toxic or terrible, knowing what we know about "disruptive" companies and the persona behind them, I think it is a safe bet in this case.
Well whether or not it is a safe bet (and I dont necessarily disagree), what I didagree with is the illogical reasoning I mentioned above, and also that you are making the bet on the stereotype of a persona.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hxgkyezm-bU
Tell me if you think that they believe in any of the lofty things they're talking about. No, they don't. The culture permeates top down.
(Good thing I'm not a judge)
What makes you say that?
What instances of conduct from Airbnb's founders or senior management can you cite that indicate a propensity for unethical or immoral behaviour?
And perhaps more pertinently: given that the ubiquity of the internet made it inevitable that a major marketplace would emerge that made it easier for people to conduct short-term property rentals online, and that this would inevitably clash with pre-internet regulatory frameworks, can you describe how Airbnb should have conducted themselves more ethically?
My perspective: through my involvement in YC, I know the Airbnb founders well enough to know what well-intentioned and good-natured (i.e., friendly, supportive and nice) people they are, whilst not being personally close enough to them to have any loyalties that would prevent me from being critical where it is warranted.
From that point of view, I can say there have been instances where Airbnb have made missteps or taken things a step too far in their pursuit of growth and success, but there is no consistent pattern of pathological or deeply unethical behaviour.
What do you have that would counter this?
My take is that they've built something thats super valuable and useful to society, the fact that it pushes the boundaries of current legality does not automatically make the place toxic, it just pushes the world to be slightly different in the future which is a good thing.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/21/that-airbnb-ad/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/business/media/airbnb-ads...
I agree the campaign over SF taxes was a bad misstep. But it was just a bad PR move, probably conceived by an agency or staff member (though of course management is ultimately responsible). But it wasn't a criminal act, and nobody got hurt. They accepted the criticism, withdrew the campaign, and haven't done anything like it in the 18+ months since.
To me it's more notable that they've had so few scandals or skeletons dragged out of the founders' closets, given how much of a tall poppy they've become and how much of an appetite there is to cut them down.
I for one wish people were more honest. Stop saying we're trying to make the world a better place when you're not. For example, it is ok to push instant booking on everyone but please stop astroturfing about how you're doing it to prevent racism. There's always the real reason why you do something and there's the marketing reason why you do something. People are not that stupid. Just look at the CEO's face and tell me you think he is sincere about anything. Even Travis is a better actor.
Honesty and openness - that's all I ask.
I don't know if it is even possible though. Those who are honest and open will get their lunch money stolen by the "elites".
:/
I had no idea the instant book feature was so controversial.
That said, as a traveller, it works well for me: I'm currently staying in an Airbnb property that I booked late last night, less than 15 hours before checkin. I only booked this place because I was able to get instant confirmation. It worked well for the host too; she got a 3-night booking she otherwise wouldn't have. So, both of us have benefited from this change.
At the same time, it really was the case that Airbnb started getting a heap of criticism 6-12 months ago for the propensity for hosts to reject bookings from people of different races. So there is absolutely substance to that justification.
> There's always the real reason why you do something and there's the marketing reason why you do something.
You seem to be committing the rhetorical fallacy of looking through all the possible motives somebody can have for an act, identifying the lowest one and asserting that that must be the real one.
> Just look at the CEO's face and tell me you think he is sincere about anything.
You should provide an example of him being or seeming to be insincere.
My own experience, having known him personally, is that he is as sincere and strong in his convictions as anyone I've met. In fact, in the YC batch we participated in together, Airbnb was voted (on two separate occasions, by a big margin) as the company most likely to succeed, because the founders were so energetic, hard-working, sincere in their mission, and good natured in the way they thought about/behaved towards their customers, their YC batch-mates, and everyone they interacted with.
Looking back, I'm comfortable conceding that it was these positive qualities in them that weren't present in me, that caused them to be so successful and for me to not be.
> Honesty and openness - that's all I ask.
You've provided no evidence that they are anything other than this.
> I don't know if it is even possible though. Those who are honest and open will get their lunch money stolen by the "elites".
I know it's easy to look at a company achieving huge success, seeing all the reports of them operating with questionable ethics, and thinking that the only way to be successful to is be unethical.
But there's a difference between operating consistently unethically/immorally, and pushing the boundaries to their limit (with occasional, inevitable, overstepping the mark).
In the past I've often made the same mistake, but over time I've learned this was due to my own resentment and unwillingness to concede that maybe others were succeeding because they were just doing a better job than I was.
If you don't like the law, you can vote, run for office, volunteer, donate to a candidate or nonprofit, or bother your elected officials. I'm no fan of lobbying ("corruption in anything but name"—sweetheart gigs for sympathetic representatives once they get out of office), but it's legal for AirBnb to do this too.
In reality, you can do two things about it;
1. Like it
2. Absolutely nothing
This myth that an honest individual with good intentions can somehow influence the system is harmful and needs to die. If you're not a huge corporation or lobby group, your chances of getting a law changed is for all intents and purposes zero.
Airbnb, however, is a huge corporation with lots and lots of money. It's not a myth for them.
It's a high bar to clear (I certainly haven't cleared it), but to pretend it's impossible is the definition of cynisicm.
Step 1: Read article
Step 2: Resume cynicism
Aside: I hate South Park. The smug self righteous cynicism it engenders is just another cult, but for apathy.
Aside response: I don't watch South Park, so I don't know what you're even referring to.
I personally stopped my government from spending $15m on an unneeded ballot tracking system (it added voter ids to ballots, eliminating the secret ballot).
I have friends that made the DREAM Act happen. Ditto my state's legalization of weed and gay marriage.
But if apathy and despair is your thing, I'll stop here and let you get back to it.
Here are a few examples.
Gregory Watson got the constitution amended in 1992[0].
Reverend Warren H. Stewart got Arizona to declare Martin Luther King day a state holiday[1].
Richard and Maureen Kanka got Megan's law passed[2].
[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-a-c-grade-college-te...
[1] http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2...
You could do any of those things, or you could do things that...actually work?
Other regulations, like more stringent fire codes for hotels, signage to fire escapes, sprinkler systems etc. are paid for with blood, not lobbyists.
You may have other regulations in mind though, that I don't know about.
1. The set of all arbitrary regulations which aim to limit supply.
2. The set of all arbitrary regulations which have the consequence of limiting supply.
3. The set of all arbitrary regulations which could conceivably have the consequence of limiting supply at any time in the future.
4. The set of all regulations which aim to limit supply.
5. The set of all regulations which have the consequence of limiting supply.
6. The set of all regulations which could conceivably have the consequence of limiting supply at any time in the future.
7. The set of all regulations.
If it's #1 and only ever #1, I'm with you.