Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Most everyone on HN is going to agree with what you are saying: that there is a reasonable narrative in which "EJ" is unable to return to her home due to fear. As a recent victim of a comparatively pathetic "violent" crime: that is absolutely something you are concerned about. And that's before we even get to the topic of "can EJ repair the damage done to her home without diminishing the expected return from a settlement with Airbnb", which might also keep her out of her house.

So yes. Let's all agree: it's not crazy to acknowledge that "EJ" is trapped in a set of circumstances keeping her out of her house.

However. That does not mean the only interpretation of events here is that "EJ" is fundamentally unable to return to her home. Another possible interpretation is, she lawyered up (good for her), and has been advised that the longer this remains an issue for her, the better her negotiating position is.

View on HN

I've seen half a dozen replies from you saying she probably has a lawyer and is trying to milk this, without a shred of evidence, other than "that's what you would do."

I think presenting that theory once is more than enough - you don't have to reply to everybody with your theory.

Again with the attempts to factionalize the discussion. "If you're not with her, you're against us!" It's weird. Why do you feel the need to take sides?

I don't see an attempt from the GP to factionalize the discussion, at least in the comment you replied to. But I do see an attempt from you to factualize it.

> I think presenting that theory once is more than enough

It's the first time I read it.

> you don't have to reply to everybody with your theory.

And you didn't have to post this reply. But you did. It's almost like we can comment on things, and reply to them.

If you think he's spamming, flag it. Otherwise, enjoy that his comments are at least contributing to the overall discussion, and not worthless comments bitching about constructive comments.

Oh, the irony.

No.

Even if she didn't "lawyer up", she wouldn't return to her home for feeling unsafe until everything is cleaned up and restored. Especially since she got friends and family to stay with. Especially since she's probably waiting to see how much AirBnB will reimburse her. And especially cause she's probably going to find a new place to live after all this and I wouldn't blame her. They defiled and shat on her home.

Now if she did "lawyer up", and her lawyer advised her to do pretty much the same thing, then it's all the same, right?

So what's your point? That she's exaggerating the condition she found her home in? Really?

We can go on forever about possible interpretations, but all those quotations are making you look bad. What proof do you have that EJ is "EJ", and that Troy is "Troy" and that this is a "conspiracy" and were an "angry mob of white knights"?

Angry mob of white knights? Are you sure you're replying to the right comment?

It's just another assumption. But again, what makes you think there's a lawyer involved too?

A lawyer wouldn't be your first call after the police if this happened to you? It sure would be mine.

No, and neither did this guy, Troy, who also called airbnb. I don't think its a good idea to counter with more speculation.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that EJ has at least as much legal representation as I'd have any time I ended a lease with a significant security deposit, and if you don't think that's reasonable, I don't care; I simply think you're wrong. The world will nonetheless continue turning on its axis.

It may be surprising to you but a lot of people are not so lawyerly. I myself have never used a lawyer for a personal matter despite many situations where it sounds like you would. It's just not my thing I suppose and I don't believe I'm alone. Not saying it's better or worse.

I would immediately have a lawyer involved as well, but then I can't imagine finding myself in EJ's position to begin with, i.e. renting my home out to a complete stranger without even a background check. I think we're dealing with a rather different mind set here, and not the "lawyer up" type.

Possibly, yes. But since there are so many other potentially fishy aspects of the story, let's spend our time focusing on those instead of this one.

Huh? "Fishy"? Please stop talking like that. Neither Airbnb nor "EJ" owes us the complete objective retelling of exactly what has transpired between them. When "EJ" doesn't recount absolutely every fact that isn't completely favorable to her cause of action, that doesn't make her a crook. She isn't on trial, and you aren't a jury.

But the result is that Airbnb is taking a PR beating. So if EJ is intentionally misconstruing the facts (or Airbnb for that matter) it is important and relevant.

Look, I'm not saying they [Airbnb] are doing everything right. But at the same time, the renters have got to take on some responsibility for handing out their keys to strangers; yes that's what you're doing, is that a surprise?

This isn't all on EJ or all on Airbnb. Clearly the responsibility goes both ways, but while neither side is absolved of responsibility, EJ must back off on laying the blame on Airbnb so intensely and without remorse. Previously she stated they offered "emotionally and financially" support and were extremely helpful, only now there's veritable lynch mob has she backtracked on those statements.

Still I think Airbnb has a lot to answer for: their statements have been inconsistent.

The notion that "EJ" is in any way responsible for Airbnb's PR is one of the toxic premises leading to the "team Airbnb" vs. "team EJ" nonsense populating these threads. It leads directly to the notion that anything said about "EJ"'s case that isn't 100% favorable to "EJ" implies that she's dishonest.

She "backtracked" once the co-founder started talking to her about taking down her blog or changing it to put a positive spin on things. Before that she was only talking to the CS reps/CS manager, who were offering support (emotional mostly it seems) & asking how she was doing, etc.

No, it wasn't when the inquisition came, it was in response to the airbnb post. We've gone through this already, llambda. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823714.

And as I've said, ulisesroche, that is one side of the story. No more likely to be true or accurate than the other based on the available facts. In your own words: we've been through this. How long is it going to take for you to admit we just don't know the full story? What will persuade you that it's possible EJ has reframed the situation just as it's possible Airbnb has done so as well? Your insistence on standing up for one side is really where you've gone wrong here. I maintain that neither side is at fault. It's tiresome to see this become a debate over "he said, she said" hearsay evidence.

I'm correcting you, that's all. How can you say you're neutral and then present only one side?

Well, Troy provided pictures but probably EJ's nearly-identical story must be false.

Right?

>But at the same time, the renters have got to take on some responsibility for handing out their keys to strangers; yes that's what you're doing, is that a surprise?

It's a good point but if AirBnb can't take measures to mitigate these horror scenarios and all the onus is on renters, then they can kiss their stratospheric valuation goodbye. Who's going to want to participate in this service with even a 0.01% chance that they will sustain $1000s in damages? The risk wouldn't be worth it.

Much like Ebay took measures against cheaters, AirBnb should create measures in case of nightmare renters (valid ID, credit card, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com