Wouldn't the Airbnb guys have already given her contact info to PG if they had wanted to?
What made you decide to do so and did you ask her for permission to pass on her details to a third party?
What made you decide to do so and did you ask her for permission to pass on her details to a third party?
Maybe.
> What made you decide to do so and did you ask her for permission to pass on her details to a third party?
I think that PG is a very smart guy and I have some personal reasons to believe that PG has his heart very much in the right place when it comes to things that are this personal. I can not go in to details there, you'll have to trust me on that one.
I did not ask for her permission, but I think that her information is in very trusted hands with Paul and I am 100% sure that he would never ever abuse it.
I would be surprised if these companies have not offered the support of their PR teams to help Airbnb dig themselves out of this hole.
PG to me is the 'father' of all these start-ups, and as I wrote I have personal reasons to believe that he is exactly the right guy for this.
What is needed most at this moment in time is someone with a capacity for empathy and some adult supervision.
PR can come afterwards, my own view of PR is that is mostly about putting something bad in as favorable light as possible, right now there are two parties that simply need some help and some mediation.
Consider that:
- the basis of your very questionable action [1] is precisely the type of taking-shortcuts-due-to-x-factor reasoning that this event is all about.
- the 'perceived cost' of your asking EJ "May I forward your contact info to a man who I fully trust and believe well positioned to address this to all parties' satisfaction?" was apparently deemed [2] to be excessive in the same way the simple prominent and bold statement "AirBnB takes NO responsibilities for actions of either providers or renters".
[1]: forwarding identity to PG.
[2]: you seem like a very smart guy. this can not have been an omission.
[edit: fix notes]
> : forwarding identity to PG. : you seem like a very smart guy. this can not have been an omission.
All I passed was her email address and her first name, both of which were very easily found*, and I told her exactly how those were obtained.
If you think that I did that purposefully bypassing her permission then I can simply respond with saying that that is not the case, you can believe whatever you wish.
> the thought that she would object never crossed my mind, my bad.
I believe you!
And here then is the point for all geeks present: Clearly even smart, informed, people make mistakes. The notion of 'buyer beware' is the ethics of hucksters, not Hackers.
Yes, PR people are professionals whose jobs are to make something look good; companies don't hire PR pros to rip the company.
So yes, the cynical take is that PR will spin bad things into a positive light...but which major stakeholder of a company --including its founders -- wouldn't? Even when a founder or lead developer of a large company issues a mea culpa that starts with "We screwed up...", there has still been a calculation made that such an admittance is good public relations and relatively free of legal liability.
Your implication may be that PR pros are more likely to have less of a conscience, and since they aren't hard-working developers and builders like the rest of us, they are more likely to lie with a smile...
I can't point to any empirical evidence that they do or don't, and I predict neither can you. But what you did, and what the coffee-drinking co-founder reportedly did (from EJ's perspective), make a very strong case for the importance of a competent PR person.
Quite simply, that competent PR person is the overseer of what has been said so far by the company, by the plaintiff, by the lawyers, and by the media. He or she, ideally, when queried by any of these parties, will answer such queries honestly with what he knows has been previously stated and/or promised by the other party, or will say "I don't know that, let me ask [x,y,z] and I will get back to you."
I understand how that's not a good enough decisive answer for anyone here, but that's the limits of human communication when dozens of stakeholders are involved. Some things are delayed because due diligence requires it...such is the complexity of life.
So who knows what really went on in the mind of the co-founder when he asked EJ to coffee. But according to her, we might assume that he himself assumed that EJ was properly comforted enough to send her a get-down-to-business email. She apparently was not. How could such a drastic misunderstanding happen when a co-founder, in your perfect world, is ostensibly the end-all point of proper decision and action?
To compound the problem, Brian Chesky writes the prototypical PR statement that looks downright shady in retrospect after EJ swiftly responds with a dramatic blog post that also accuses someone at airbnb of attempting to silence her blog.
Let's give Chesky the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know or condone such a request. Well, some well-intended white (from the investors' perspective) or black (from many other people's perspective) knight from airbnb apparently did so.
On top of all of that, EJ accuses airbnb of cold shouldering her until the blog blowup at HN. Hell, I don't remember the exact timeline, but I doubt even most of the avid participants in this thread do...certainly none of the newcomers won't bother sketching out a flowchart for themselves.
Boy, having one competent person be the sole point of contact -- even just a smooth-talking PR underling -- sure sounds good right now. Even if we give the co-founders the benefit of the doubt of being as upfront and willing to help as possible, the apparent innocent miscommunications have made many people, including MA, very jaded.
And now you've thrown yourself into the mix, in the belief that this is all caused by the immature incompetent behavior of the airbnb executive team (boy, that's a great message to future airbnb investors) and failed PR...don't you think it's a wee bit ironic to make your "I-tracked-her-down-and-gave-her-info-to-PG-because-I-can't-see-PG-screwing-this-up" comment in a HN thread based on a TechCrunch post in which a self-professed fan of airbnb accuses PG of outright lying?
If providing fodder for another top-voted HN thread that accuses airbnb of a coverup isn't a screw-up, then, well...
In any case, you might be a well-intentioned, smart developer and entrepreneur. But you've made mistakes that I hope even an undergrad in communications wouldn't have. I hate to be the one speaking out for PR professionals, but for godssake, hire one in your next large-scale venture.
Wow, how exactly is that your decision to make?
With what I know about PG and the situation as it has been presented to date if he gets involved he will resolve it, if he does not then it will quite probably blow up with as the only winners the lawyers.
Note that technically EJ is not entitled to any compensation, but morally she definitely is.
Someone that can influence AirBNB to do the right thing here and that has a very good idea on what the public opinion on this thing will do to AirBNB when - not if - it will hit the mainstream is what's called for.
Judging by the speed with which HN has turned from 'gung ho pro AirBNB' to ripping it to shreds I think that there is evidence enough that the public opinion will not be favorable to AirBNB and that PG is well aware of this.
Jesus I wish these self-important fucks would stop bragging about how fucking great they are. Actually, just stop talking, all of you. Shut up, and do some fucking work.
Also, take your language back to 4chan whence you came.
[1] Other than offering pitty.
This is not a movie. This is not a case of a burning house and you're the only one in the vicinity to rush into and rescue a child stuck in his room. In fact, if there is a burning house and the firefighters have already arrived, your well intentioned actions may put their lives at risk
Not all "good" actions remain "good" in every context.
1. The expectations of everyone involved. Does EJ have an expectation of privacy? Could she be expecting to keep her personal life, as much as possible, separate from the whole flap on the internet? Does AirBnB have an expectation of handling this without PG's assistance? Does PG have an expectation of not being dragged into a situation in which he could have involved himself if he so wished? (I think it's pretty clear at this point what my opinion of jacques' actions here is.)
2. All of the possible outcomes, and the likelihood of each one. Is it possible that tracking down someone's contact information -- using information gleaned from their blog -- will emotionally harm them in a situation that has already made them feel extremely vulnerable? Is it possible that there are currently unknown legal complications now, and that PG cannot become involved? Is it possible that attempting to involve him could make the situation even more complicated?
3. Whether or not the interference is even needed. Look, EJ has managed to get her story into the print edition of the Financial Times. It's spreading like wildfire online. I think it's very clear that she can handle herself. And, if AirBnB can't handle themselves, with all the money they recently raised and all of the resources they have at their disposal (monetary and advisory and otherwise), then they have no business being in business.
I've interfered in others' lives and situations on numerous occasions. I've seen the results of my actions go sideways. I've put more and more effort into understanding and considering a situation before leaping in. I've, finally, more recently, resolved to quit screwing around in other people's situations as much as possible.
Perhaps putting his internet detective skills to work only to let the woman know that her identity was at risk would have been a smart thing to do. Passing her contact information on to a third party -- regardless of who that party is or why -- without either her permission or that third party's permission, was a rookie mistake. It might have been well-meaning, but it was still a mistake.
The guy getting unfairly downvoted up above is exactly right: we should all be shutting the hell up and getting some fucking work done. (Myself included.)
PG dragged himself in to it by standing up for AirBNB's actions in a public forum.
He probably should not have done that.
> Passing her contact information on to a third party -- regardless of who that party is or why -- without either her permission or that third party's permission, was a rookie mistake. It might have been well-meaning, but it was still a mistake.
Agreed, and I have apologized to her that I did not seek her consent first, based on the note I received afterwards it seems that she is ok with it, but that does not diminish my mistake and I should be more careful with stuff like that.
First, PG has a financial interest in keeping the company growing strong.
Second and most importantly, if PG intervenes here against the will of other investors, they may not want to invest in future companies where PG is a shareholder. So it is vastly in PG's interest to not act on the contact info you gave him.
Overall, all you did was seriously creep out a vulnerable lady.
I figure PG not talking to all parties is what caused the bigger mess.
> You're telling us to calm down, to not be so brash, but you should have asked for her permission.
I don't like witch hunts.
AirBNB has obviously done a lot of things wrong here but I think they can still recover from this if it gets handled 100% good from now on forward.
I agree, I should have asked for her permission, it never crossed my mind because I feel that it was the right thing to do, and because since PG is an investor he might as well have that information, it's not like he is an outsider to this whole affair, but he is uniquely positioned to see both sides of the story.
But I hope you see how you have potentially mucked things up, and that if this doesn't add more fuel to the fire it's only because all the interested parties are enjoying their weekend. I admire your idealism but there are way too many moving parts and potential for miscommunication for someone to make an act of intervention based on his personal faith in one of the investors involved
> I did not ask for her permission
Jacques, that is not cool. Extremely, extremely not cool. Did you at least tell her you'd done it? Ask for forgiveness? What did she say? (Edit: downthread, jacquesm reports, "I have apologized to her that I did not seek her consent first, based on the note I received afterwards it seems that she is ok with it, but that does not diminish my mistake and I should be more careful with stuff like that.")
Look at it from her perspective. You passed the contact information of a homeless victim of a serious crime to a powerful, world-famous venture capitalist who has a billion-dollar incentive to shut her up. Against her will. If this was a movie plot, we wouldn't see any more blog posts from her, ever again.