Hacker News Reader

Comment by temphn | Hacker News Reader

For those just tuning in, Paul Carr has been bashing AirBnB since last summer:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/25/fawlty-logic/

And has a vested interest in their failure:

  Disclosure: I like hotels a lot – and I’ve spent much of my 
  life in them. Both of my parents are career-long hoteliers, 
  first managing large corporate chain units and now owning 
  their own hotel in the UK.

And now he's accusing these poor guys of "losing their souls". This whole internet lynch mob thing is scary. Let's remember that they didn't trash the apartment, they just set up a CRUD site with a good UI that got really popular. How exactly are they more responsible than Faith Clifton, the criminal who ransacked the apartment and who they helped SFPD arrest?

Seriously, some extreme hyperbole here.

View on HN

> And now he's accusing these poor guys of "losing their souls".

When you call up the victim and ask them to close down their blog because or restrict access because you don't want it to affect your round of funding, you're not "poor guys" anymore. When you ask her to add some positive spin to the story when there's no positive spin to be had, you're not an innocent bystander anymore.

Nobody's saying the founders are responsible for the damage, they're saying the way the founders treated the victim is deplorable.

I think a lot of people have been saying they are responsible.

and they are. like, you know, a pub is responsible when you slip on the wet floor there and break a leg.

some people would say that you should have eyes and be careful, but would we listen to them, or sue the pub that forgot to put 'caution wet floor' sign?

So, with the anonymizing that AirBnB does, how does one "have eyes and be careful?"

edit: added "how"

that's what i'm saying, so that's also why the company is responsible, i think

You have no idea what happened on whatever call you're thinking of. You have no idea what's been offered to the victim. You have no idea, basically, period. But you're OK passing judgement on them. Good to know.

What's the win to a comment like this? Even if you're eventually shown to be right --- and that's still an if --- why go out on the limb at all?

Is it such a bad idea to disclose what was offered?

Unfortunately the statements so far have not been "human" enough. When they said their lawyers couldn't let them say any more than X, it's bound to incite one's suspicion that they're trying to shy away from some moral inclinations which their lawyers may have warned them not to indulge in.

Even though the specifics of the offer cannot be disclosed, why not put out a reassuring statement like "We're committed to putting a smile back on her face again"? Not being specific / tangible in their PR will definitely be a lot more tolerable then.

And if they can be a little more specific and relevant, how about some PR saying they're offering counselling or therapy of some sort - I'm sure its one of the things that was offered - and I'm sure it would be make for great brand building if it was part of their current communication.

Also, if AirBnB had been more open in this way, they could have avoided the embarrassment of being contradicted by the victim herself. You know who the people would trust more at this stage.

In short, a little less heartless corporate, a little more Zappos, please.

AirBnB could have actually had an upside in the whole thing if they handled in a better, probably more upfront, manner.

Sure, there's a danger of people abusing or taking advantage of the system at a later date but that cannot stand in the way of dousing what is clearly a PR fire in the house of a promising company.

Disclosure: I am biased towards neither AirBnb nor the victim. I have sympathy for the woman but I am open to the possibility that she is not being cooperative.

I see no reason to doubt what EJ has said so far. AirBnB/pg have made several conflicting statements, called reporters liars for repeating official statements, and in general, proven to be less consistent/trustworthy than "EJ", which considering her anonymous status, really says something.

The only reason I can see to doubt EJ's story is if you're in the "this is a conspiracy against AirBnB" camp.

I am not calling EJ a liar. This isn't a football game.

You say it "isn't a football game," but either she's telling the truth on the bullying point or she's not. You clearly believe the latter is a strong enough possibility that you condemned my comments, based on my belief in what she has said. So you aren't calling her a liar... are you calling her "confused"? "Misguided"?

I've made my point why I think she's the most believable currently. You, however, don't want to acknowledge that you doubt her.

Why does anybody have to be calling her anything for certain? If one believes that they don't have enough information to determine with any significance whether she's more likely to be telling the truth or telling a mistaken account of events (whether intentionally or otherwise), it would be best to not take her words as more trustworthy than Airbnb's or vice versa. "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate point of view and "wait and see" a perfectly legitimate action given that point of view.

She's given extremely detailed, well-written accounts of everything that has transpired. Nothing she has said has been disputed by any party.

I think the better question is, where does this doubt come from, and where do the attacks against the victim come from (just a difficult customer, batshit, drama queen...)? I suspect purely loyalty.

You don't have to believe in a conspiracy. You just have to believe that there are some extremely difficult customers out there.

Given that AirBnB offered her money and she isn't picking it up or returning their calls, but is talking to reporters, the most plausible explanation is that she's looking to get a huge payday in a lawsuit.

She didn't have to think of the idea herself. A lawyer or family member may have put the thought in her head. "This is a billion dollar company, you know!"

Do you really think she's not going to go for big dollars in a lawsuit at this point?

> Given that AirBnB offered her money

There's been conflicting reports about this. Airbnb told TechCrunch - on the record - that they wouldn't pay for anything, that they didn't want to set a precedent.

> she isn't picking it up or returning their calls

She says that they stopped calling her after she posted the blog, except to beg her to take it down and suggest she pretend everything is all better.

> is talking to reporters

She's posted two blog posts - the first one reporting the incident, and another a month later. That's not "talking to reporters." Your framing is disingenuous at best.

> Do you really think she's not going to go for big dollars in a lawsuit at this point?

I don't think that a lawsuit would do well considering she said several times in her initial blog post that AirBnB is not at all to blame for her experience and that she held a significant amount of responsibility.

Here's where you're taking it: she's not the victim, AirBnB is the victim. She's the "extremely difficult customer," or as Robert Scoble put it, "batshit crazy" and a "drama queen." She's not a victim, she's just a bitch. Right. I don't like demonizing victims, but I know in the male-dominated tech world this kind of framing is an easy sell.

I think the basic point is that you are talking as if there is certainty around your claims when there isn't.

Nothing she's said has been disputed by anyone. Why do people suspect she's been dishonest if nobody even disputes anything she says?

Why do you infer she's being honest? That argument goes both ways; problematically significant however is the fact that we don't have all the facts therefore there's no use assuming she's lying or Airbnb is lying!

> That's not "talking to reporters."

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2011...

"Meanwhile, I communicated by email and by phone late Friday with a woman who said she was "EJ," a corporate events planner who later asked me not to be identified by name because of her continuing fears that other suspects may still be at large and because of the online furor surrounding her experience. (She also said she was speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, and I confirmed portions of her information with the San Francisco police department.)"

I stand corrected. The fact remains that nothing she's said has been disputed by anyone, the only people who have been inconsistent are airbnb and pg, and yet she's still the one being attacked.

"Here's where you're taking it: she's not the victim, AirBnB is the victim. She's the "extremely difficult customer," or as Robert Scoble put it, "batshit crazy" and a "drama queen." She's not a victim, she's just a bitch. Right. I don't like demonizing victims, but I know in the male-dominated tech world this kind of framing is an easy sell."

This is your problem. You're thinking in terms of "victims" and "villains" when, instead, you should be thinking about the available facts and information.

"There's been conflicting reports about this."

- good news! We've been updated.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822721

That is the latest report from pg/airbnb.

> That is the latest report from pg/airbnb.

And TechCrunch has already commented on this (http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/30/how-the-hell-is-this-my-fau...), which is why I said there are conflicting reports:

> 2. Airbnb’s Christopher Lukezic told me on Wednesday that the company was not responsible for EJ’s losses, that they would be paying anything for her losses, that they are just a service to match people and that they were helping the police find the people who did this. This was on the record, and it was a call we emailed about first. I didn’t take him by surprise. And I read this back to him before I posted.

> 3. Paul Graham says instead “The spokesman, who’d been told by their lawyers that he couldn’t go into detail about that because of the precedent said “I can’t comment on that.” So Arrington, in typical Arrington fashion said “Well, unless you tell me I’m going to write that you’re not willing to do anything for her.” And he did. Really not cool.

> That’s a lie. What he said is what I wrote in no. 2 above, and what was in the original post.

If she is lying, AirBnB can sue her for defamation. At the very least, there's some wacky timeline here - she blogs that AirBnB have done nothing, AirBnB respond by offering her something, then tell everyone that "Look, it's not like that, we made an offer to fix up her place". Which is really dodgy.

I suspect that AirBnB are telling themselves "We did no wrong, we didn't trash her appartment, she's a litigious who is dragging our name though the mud". Fair enough. Grow up, you are running a company that is going disrupt the hotel industry - get used to it. Everyone else in hospitality is capable of dealing with ugly situations. Many of them remain good people, despite the ugliness.

I really doubt that AirBnB are a bunch of "nice" people though. Their business is basically illegal in virtually every state. They might be charismatic. They might even have good intentions. But I doubt they are all stereotypical Boy Scouts (as opposed to real Boy Scouts, who are often capable of being very streetsmart, if the situation calls for it).

> I suspect that AirBnB are telling themselves "We did no wrong, we didn't trash her appartment, she's a litigious who is dragging our name though the mud". Fair enough. Grow up, you are running a company that is going disrupt the hotel industry - get used to it. Everyone else in hospitality is capable of dealing with ugly situations. Many of them remain good people, despite the ugliness.

On the one hand you admit they are disrupting the hotel industry, so they should suck it up and suffer random abuse yet remain good guys and totally affable. (But you wouldn't say the same to the woman).

On the other hand you presume them to be evil and say that their business is "illegal in every state" (which it isn't).

Don't you think that's a mite contradictory?

> Given that AirBnB offered her money and she isn't picking it up or returning their calls, but is talking to reporters, the most plausible explanation is that she's looking to get a huge payday in a lawsuit.

Or she doesn't want "hush" money, or she's feeling scared and hurt.

> I see no reason to doubt what EJ has said so far.

This is incredibly naive. It could be the case that this was a setup. And it would be very easy to set such a thing up. And there's an entire industry with a lot of old money invested in that industry continuing. That means motive. Nobody here can say yet with 100% confidence what really did or did not happen. Could it have really happened in a non-setup fashion? Of course, and arguably it is/was inevitable. Could it also have been a "hit job"? You bet. Whenever you've got people in one camp with millions if not billions in existing revenue on the line, you have a motive. And the means and method are both easy and obvious.

> This is incredibly naive.

No, it's based on all the existing evidence currently out there.

> It could be the case that this was a setup.

This is based on speculation.

> And it would be very easy to set such a thing up.

It's easy to do lots of things.

> And there's an entire industry with a lot of old money invested in that industry continuing.

So? Any evidence? Anything other than liking Airbnb/YC to suspect this?

> That means motive.

You've shown the hotel industry has motive. Not EJ. This is irrelevant.

> Nobody here can say yet with 100% confidence what really did or did not happen.

Nobody can say anything with 100% confidence when two stories conflict. We don't even require juries to be 100% confident, we ask them to be sure beyond "reasonable doubt." What you have here is not a reasonable doubt. It is concocted

> Could it have really happened in a non-setup fashion? Of course, and arguably it is/was inevitable.

Yes, it was inevitable. This is a good reason to suspect

> Could it also have been a "hit job"? You bet.

My water could have been poisoned by my next-door neighbor because I had a loud party one night. I have no reason to believe this, but it could be happening! In fact, that silly scenario has better motive (which you emphasize) than your concoction since it actually ties the accused to the motive, which you haven't done.

> Whenever you've got people in one camp with millions if not billions in existing revenue on the line, you have a motive. And the means and method are both easy and obvious.

That's a delightful story, but again... you've presented nothing but pure speculation.

> It could be the case that this was a setup

It could also be the case that the founders running Airbnb have a mildly sociopathic personality style. (I don't mean that in a derogatory sense - I'm calling it a personality style, not a personality disorder... while such a personality style might represent a disability when it comes to forming intimate personal relationships, it would be an advantage when hustling to get a startup off the ground.) Of course, when such individuals are called on for a display of genuine empathy, compassion, or humanity, they will be left feeling confused and won't know what hit them - they might even start to believe that they are being victimized.

The real point is that the AirBnB situation is untenable regardless of who's telling the truth.

Suppose EJ is lying. Well, then, this business has a profound reputation risk which can be exploited by any given individual using (or claiming to use) the service. A risk which is going to tie heavily into some fundamental problems in vetting both guests and hosts.

Suppose AirBnB are lying. The company is exposed as being ungrateful, etc., as Paul Carr's excellent piece notes (conflict of interest or no, he captures the situation well).

Suppose EJ and AirBnB are both being truthful. Neither disputes that the house-trashing occurred, there's been some contact between AirBnB, and apparently at least partial assistance in finding accommodations, etc. We've still got a woman who's been hugely inconvenienced, has suffered real, physical, and psychological losses, and needs to put her life back together. And we've got a company with a real and apparently intractable problem with its business model, possibly running scared.

Inviting strangers off the Internet to come stay at your house is going to involve some very real risks, and some percentage, however small, of AirBnB experiences are going to end very badly.

As I noted in an earlier post on this subject, what happened to EJ isn't the worst possible case. A guest copying keys, returning to the home, raping and killing the host, would be ... a pretty bad day.

I think AirBnB are going to have to re-think what they're offering, whom they're catering to (for both guests and hosts), and what they can do to mitigate risks (guests are also assuming risks, though not to their real estate as hosts are).

Disintermediation via the Web is great when you've got a happy, happy crowd of people involved. The lesson from history is that this isn't a stable or scalable situation. Woodstock was followed by Altamont.

I've got my own suspicions as to who seems more credible, or at least is acting to type. None of us will know until more facts are known, police and criminal investigations are concluded (and perhaps tried), and the dispute between EJ and AirBnB is settled (perhaps also going to court). Even then much may remain vague, under seal, or otherwise obscured.

None of that changes any of what I've said: AirBnB simply involves too much risk exposure to all parties: hosts, gusts, AirBnB, and its investors/creditors.

It's going to have to restructure fundamentally, or fold.

The risk point is interesting. All sides have asymmetric information, and the marketplace makes no attempt to deal with this. Most successful markets do something to even up these risks, or to mitigate them, or you get the classic market for lemons situation.

The risk point is supposedly handled by facebook graphs.

Does anybody know what the facebook graph looked like in the airbnb case that went bad?

> I see no reason to doubt what EJ has said so far. AirBnB/pg have made several conflicting statements, called reporters liars for repeating official statements, and in general, proven to be less consistent/trustworthy than "EJ", which considering her anonymous status, really says something.

Her anonymous status really says something, like what? Well it says she's anonymous, that's it. Nothing more. This is pure hyperbole. The simple fact is, we don't have all the facts. It's her word against Airbnb's word. Neither side is more credible without more facts. Clearly both have demonstrated they will reframe their situation as circumstances change[1][2][3].

[1] http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html "I would be remiss if I didn’t pause here to emphasize that the customer service team at airbnb.com has been wonderful, giving this crime their full attention. They have called often, expressing empathy, support, and genuine concern for my welfare. They have offered to help me recover emotionally and financially, and are working with SFPD to track down these criminals." An initial perspective, pre-Internet mob: "EJ" made a first post about how helpful Airbnb has been, stating they have offered to provide "emotional and financial support".

[2] http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/07/airbnb-nightmare... "Airbnb has not assisted me in securing my safety, if that is the implication being made in Chesky's article" and "But the staff at Airbnb has not made a positive contribution to me personally or my situation in any way, particularly since June 30." Then in her second blog post she backtracks and claims that Airbnb has done effectively nothing to help her.

[3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822721 "Airbnb has been offering to fix it, from the very beginning. From the beginning they offered to pay to get her a new place and new stuff, and do whatever else she wanted." Here pg is commenting in regards to information he received from Airbnb, apparently contradicting the latest "EJ" post but corroborating the original.

Michael Arrington · Top Commenter · Founder at TechCrunch

"He said they would not reimburse her for damages, then talked about how they're just a service. Then we talked about something else for a bit. Then I read him what I wrote about what he said. then he said ok, but maybe we are doing something for her. I asked him if he wanted to me to write that they have no liability for damages at all, that they are just a service, that they are only helping her and the police find the suspect, and then say that the spokesperson changed his mind and said that maybe they were helping her but he wasn't sure and he had to check with customer service and get back to me? I suggested he figure it out and email me any corrections, which he did. It was one of the more amateurish moments I've seen, and if I had quoted the poor guy directly he would have looked like a fool."

Yet even "EJ" points out she was offered "emotional and financial" support from Airbnb, in her own words. Hm.

I'm not taking sides: As I see it, both sides have reframed the story as it has progressed, with "EJ" retracting her original statement regarding help and Airbnb seemingly saying first one thing then another.

Finally, it's enough already: Airbnb should take measures to prevent this in the future and on the other hand people should remember they are inviting a stranger into their home. In my view, with the available facts, both sides are at fault in various ways or said another way: neither side is at fault.

Now can we move on with our lives and get back to Hacker News sans-drama?

> The only reason I can see to doubt EJ's story is if you're in the "this is a conspiracy against AirBnB" camp.

Really? The ONLY reason? Your superlative-fu is strong.

If you are calling EJ a liar, it could be true. But I see little interest for EJ to be lying here. Eventually investigations will be done and such details like "what's been offered to the victim" will be revealed. So no point lying there. (On the other hand you may suggest a huge conspiracy theory by someone who doesn't want to see the company grow, it sounds far fetched.)

You mean besides a very lucrative lawsuit or settlement?

EJ don't have to be a liar. Simply Interpreting the event differently and taking that to court could be enough.

"lucrative lawsuit or settlement"

How? If I'm not mistaken the terms clearly say the company is not responsible in these kind of situations.

What gets written into a contract, and what a court will uphold, can be two very different things. Lawyers regularly include language in contracts, notices, terms of use etc that they know won't hold up, because it will intimidate a certain percentage of people into not even trying.

The classic example is those signs in parking lots saying "we accept no liability for damage to your car". Well in an unmodified common law jurisdiction, it's a bailee-bailor relationship and they are on the hook for the damage.

Contracts are not like computer programs. They can and do include deliberate bullshit included purely for strategic bluffing purposes.

Of course, IANAL, TINLA.

Lucrative lawsuit? Settlement? Besides the obvious terms of use which will exempt Airbnb from liability, why would EJ have said profusely that Airbnb bears no responsibility? How does that help her win a case blaming Airbnb for anything?

People start lawsuits on all kind of reasons whether they stand a fair chance or not.

I don't care either way, the main point is that we don't have enough information to make any useful conclusions.

It would be nice to at least admit that.

We have plenty of useful information.

You've just decided that the source's word is no good when nothing she's said has been disputed by any party. If you ignore her because you don't like what she has to say, then yeah, you wouldn't have "enough information to make any useful conclusions."

Given that you read an awful lot into what I just wrote I think my point still stands.

You have no way of knowing what is going on. Feel free to speculate just don't wrap it into a vail of certainty when it's clearly not.

She don't have to lie for your interpretation of the whole matter to be wrong.

If you have ever dealt with angry customers or mis treated customers you would know what I mean. Things a rarely as crystal clear as they seem.

Apart from what was said about the chances that the terms of use would not stand in court - it is also possible that the lawsuit is just a racket operation, it is a pain for airbnb regardless of the verdict and EJ could count on a settlement even without having a real case. I am not saying that she is doing it - this is only a comment on possible strategies.

Just what I was about to say. That's what turned me against Airbnb personally.

> when there's no positive spin to be had How do you know that?

I think you fail to look at the general reaction from the other side, all you have to look at is Robert Scoble's reaction to the women, calling her "crazy", "batshit crazy", "drama queen" and just about every other proponent and investor placing the blame on this women for renting out her property and keeping her stuff in the place where she lives, but this is exactly the point of airbnb. So which is it, don't rent out the space where you live, or only rent out a space that you use as only as investment. Direct link to scoble reaction: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/eT6Zar6W...

The responses in this thread is exactly what Carr is talking about. The women is trying to be vilified when she was the victim. Maybe airbnb is not the villain here either, but she certainly isn't and Airbnb's handling of the situation was less than honorable.

Off-topic: women is plural while woman is singular.

I'm trying to ignore the name calling for a second. What really struck me is this, though:

The post says:

"2. Have a single point of contact: the CEO. Part of this crisis got worse because numerous people have been speaking to the press. The first thing you should do if you are in a crisis is appoint ONE PERSON to speak to the press and represent the company. That person should be the CEO. Not Paul Graham. Not the PR team. Not some VP. Not friends. Not off the record sources. Not anyone else except the CEO. (...)"

I'd argue that

- posting this thing in general was already a violation of that rule, i.e. public advice as someone close to the company

- continuing the discussion in the comments, after posting that there shouldn't be any communication except through the CEO.

I mean.. It sounds like he wrote 'Shut up everyone, including PG' and then he continues to comment..? Am I misreading the initial statement (certainly possible) or is this a ~mismatch~?

I'm not sure how one's interest in staying hotels necessitates a vested interest in seeing AirBnB fail. I'm pretty sure there are people in the "hotel industry" that have also used services like VRBO or AirBnB for lodging.

Personally, I read Paul's article more in the sense that technology isn't important, remembering the human component in all this. If one is a company founder, your users are more than just data points. Disclaimer - like Paul, I actually enjoy using a fountain pen.

Specifically to the AirBnB fiasco? I don't know who or what is right here, it is an issue between an individual and a company that will require the two of them working together to resolve the situation. I've used AirBnB a few times (as someone staying somewhere) and plan on using them in the future. That said, I use as much caution as I can in booking a place -- reviews are important.

This particular story being turned into a YC/HN vs TC issue is silly. News is useful, but again AirBnB and EJ need to resolve this between themselves.

Did you miss the part about his parents owning a hotel or are you willfully ignoring it? That is the definition of vested interest.

Please, like AirBnb will cost his parents their living... AirBnb will always remain a very small niche

Did I say it would? Having blood relatives financially invested in an industry you are commenting on is the actual definition of vested interest. OP conve iently ignored that part. I simply pointed out the fact.

It's an opinion piece. You can pick any two sentences out of the story and realize this is someone's personal view. It isn't a clinical trial or a judiciary verdict.

I think it's largely irrelevant that his parents own a hotel. Having a particular view on something which invariably arises out of the sum total of your cultural and personal influences is not a vested interest.

"Owning a UK hotel" or "managing a large chain" is a long way from being someone like Steve Wynn, the Hilton's, or other large controlling entities that might actually care if this was actually affecting their business. Furthermore, Paul has been pretty vocal about what does/doesn't work in the hotel industry. I'm pretty sure his hotel ties don't give a rat's backside about his article, TC, and the issues AirBnB are facing.

The conspiracy theory angle is pretty dumb, in my opinion. Might there be people trying to take advantage of the situation? Sure. We've seen at least one article here on YC about an AirBnB competitor plugging the need for customer/host verification. I don't think the hotel industry really cares at this point.

VRBO and other rental sites as well as CL are the near term losers for AirBnB. Two million arrangements in 2+ years is a drop in the bucket for the hotel industry world wide. Furthermore, the majority of the traveling populace don't use such services.

You dismissed the idea of a conflict by quoting half the disclosure. All I said was he has a vested interest as is obvious from his disclosure. You are the one going on about conspiracies.

Ad hominem. Paul Carr could be the heir to half the hotels in the world, he's still got a point.

not familiar with Paul Carr, so i'm glad you brought this up, thanks. But i don't think he was lynching AirBnB for lack of accountability. Rather, he said that it was cold blooded for a co-founder to call and ask her to stop giving them a bad name right before a funding round. (i've also read somewhere else that he was trying to ask her to put a positive twist).

Had the AirBnB been able to hush the victim by offering her a juicy paycheck, it would have been a textbook example of crisis management. That the arrangement didn't work out and the lady chose to divulge the details of the deal gone sour, the co-founders are being labelled cold blooded for offering the deal in the first place. I think it's just plain bad luck that AirBnB could not come up with a compensation package good enough to muffle the victim.

Having parents who own one single hotel is hardly a "vested interest".

While I don't think it's relevant to the overall point of Carr's piece, it is still a vested interest. Carr's parents might be very small-time players in the hotel industry, but the hotel industry is a large portion of their livelihood, which is the relevant factor.

Logical fallacy: ad hominem. You are attacking the person and ignoring his argument.

Internet lynch mob is scary? what about real-life mob? Apparently it is today's norm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com