You are making a leap from "illegal" to "toxic" or to "terrible," while those are not the same.
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.