Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceilingcorner | Hacker News Reader

While this might be a good idea for this particular scenario, I don’t like the trend it sets if we continue toward monolithic tech companies replacing established, power-distributed industries. Airbnb is now worth more than the three largest hotel chains, so they are a dominant market player. When they lead, others will follow.

Sorry, you can’t get an Uber to that location because it is the site of a taxi driver protest against ride sharing.

Sorry, you can’t book a flight to that city on that date because there will be an anti-government protest.

Sorry, you can’t order these books from Amazon, because your IP has been detected visiting Parler.com

View on HN

This is example of using “where does it stop” to justify lack of action.

Should I complain that Uber doesn’t allow people who didn’t pass background check to work for them, because possibly in the future they may extend it to people who disagree with a certain party? Should I complain that Amazon doesn’t sell rape videos, because later it can stop selling document documentary videos about politicians they don’t like?

I agree that slow creep into utopia is an dangerous option, with “would somebody think about the children” approach. But using that to argument to justify lack of action in response to horrible events that undermine society is more dangerous.

The difference is that Google or Facebook (or now AirBnb) are unilaterally deciding to make my choices for me. There is no message saying, “We discourage you to go to Washington,” there is only, “We decided for you that you shouldn’t be there.” Add that to growing monopolies and suddenly you can’t make any decisions for yourself, because there are no alternatives available.

Not to mention the fact that there are a perhaps infinite number of ongoing issues that said companies don’t decide to involve themselves in which would have a much greater effect.

Those aren’t choices for you. They chose who they want to do business with. And let’s not pretend that internet doesn’t exist outside of those companies. Facebook doesn’t allow for example pornography on their website, and Internet porn is doing great.

And yeah, there are countless other issues for those companies. But perfect is an enemy of good. They’re allowed to take action, even if they won’t solve all the other problems at the same time.

And on a list of importance to the companies, not enabling violent government overthrow attempts is in their best interest, even once you strip all the politics. It’s a country where those companies are based, make most of their revenue, and where they’re listed on a stock market.

Airbnb has every right to choose who they want to do business with. But I fear a world where there is only one option and I don’t have a choice whom I want to do business with, and where all my decisions have been made for me.

Yeah, but that's not happening here.

We would need a third party, like the government or a nonprofit. When a company or companies get large enough that they monopolize a niche, when they apply arbitrary restrictions, said restrictions can be challenged in court.

If Uber prevents people from working from them who disagree with a certain party, people can sue them and argue that it isn't a justified restriction. Preventing people from working who don't pass a background check is justified, because it protects the safety of customers (assuming the background check doesn't unfairly weed out certain groups).

Whatever restrictions are required / allowed / banned is up to society as a whole. Probably we would generally err on the side of allowing things, because we like freedom, but ban anything which most agree is illegal, immoral, or dangerous.

> We would need a third party, like the government or a nonprofit.

I thought this was a joke but then I read the rest.

The government, and the many non-profits that benefit from their unique positions with government, are precisely the "enemy" of the people Airbnb are supposedly protecting us against. It would be ridiculous, self-serving, and entirely wasteful to do anything like this, especially led by the government.

So, you are describing the actual government atm.

> Sorry, you can’t order these books from Amazon, because your IP has been detected visiting Parler.com

Forget books, imagine if they did that same analysis and shutdown your AWS accounts because your IP matched one that logged into Parler.

There are a disturbing number of people who would read your post and think "That's a great idea, we should do it".

They love shows like Black Mirror for criticizing the totalitarian Social Credit system in China, but now they're urging private companies to build the same system in the US. Being unable to book travel or a hotel is actually one of the penalties if your score falls too low in China.

This should be viewed as opportunity of disruption by the competitor.

So You can’t get an Uber to that location? Don't worry use our service instead

> Today, in response to various local, state and federal officials asking people not to travel to Washington, D.C., we are announcing that Airbnb will cancel reservations in the Washington, D.C. metro area during the Inauguration week.

This is a company coordinating with local government officials.

What do you think China’s social credit system is?

Something much more pervasive than a response to a real and imminent danger.

This story from Vice about a fully autonomous Taxi service you might find intersting: https://www.vice.com/en/article/xygzvz/one-star

That's more of a compelling argument for anti-trust than it is for anything else.

Giving the government the power to force businesses to do business with parties against their will based on politics is pretty scary to me. I'd rather see companies like Uber broken up so that consumers have a lot more choice than see the government given even more power over our lives.

Tons of airbnb alternatives. For example hotels, VRBO, etc. I don't know if they're all doing the same thing, but if they are, maybe it's just a good idea?

Yes, but what if they all now follow AirBnb’s lead, just as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter all did the same thing?

Assuming a functioning market, if every single business bans a group from paying them money, doesn't this imply that that group is simply noxious and the free market has spoken?

Then build your own or at least support other who are willing to be different. Not saying its going to be easy. You want something to happen you have to keep fight/work for it.

Build your own hotel?

That seems to be the path forward. I just wish it weren’t being led by exiled Trumpists, because now the whole thing will be associated with them.

Then maybe it's just a good idea, like I said.

Offloading your democratic rights and responsibilities to a corporation will never be a good idea.

I don't think I have a democratic right to control what private organizations do, in general. That's the default. For me, you have to make a positive case that an org should be enjoined from a given behavior like the one described in the article.

It seems like all I'm seeing is slippery-slope arguments these days. Let me spell out why they come across as completely insincere:

Couldn't you just as easily argue that NOT doing anything about a losing president trying to overturn democracy is a much more slippery slope to something far worse? If you simply acknowledge this in your comments, trust me, your points will be taken more seriously.

Don't worry, many of us who consider the far-right actions insane insurrection and conspiracy theory still do believe in free-speech, and will speak up for it if it goes too far (e.g. your third example). It's kinda insincere to jump to these slippery-slope conclusions though, and I think you know that in your heart of hearts. It's pretty trivial to take any real-world phenomenon and contrive how it could be exaggerated to the point it's bad ("Police shooting an armed criminal? What's next police shooting babies?!?" "President bragging how he could shoot a person in the street? What's next, president shooting people in the street?!?").

What law would you propose to block private companies from deciding who they do and do not want to serve?

I see the obvious slippery-slope argument being made all over the place but the comparisons to the bakery refusing service to a gay couple are apt.

The concerns are over people who clearly want to leverage the platforms to induce violence (read: QAnon). If there are legitimate concerns over imminent violence, there is no legal obligation to halt service but there is absolutely a moral one.

And the free market allows others companies to continue providing service if they want. If the concern is over companies with massive market share then wouldn't your concern better be addressed by antitrust laws?

Something that ties viable competitors to the ability to reject consumers might work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com