Imagine an airbnb that's great for most guests but absolutely terrible for 1 in every 5, so bad that they quit airbnb. Maybe it's next to a music venue, so every once in a while it's very loud.
It's possible it could maintain a decent average star rating and LTV as described in the article but actually have negative (real) lifetime value for airbnb if the 1 in five that they lose would have spent a lot of money on the platform otherwise.
Edit: at least that was the situation a couple of years ago. A host below now reports that the situation has changed and they take the side of the guests; however, either way it's open to abuse no matter which side they take.
The issue is that in a marketplace where both sides can be dishonest, the only way to ensure quality is to do spot checks by trusted actors (aka company employees) where the penalties for failing such a check are dissuasive enough that it becomes more profitable to play by the rules.
This is similar to how law enforcement is supposed to operate - the reason the penalty for theft (for example) is more than merely returning the stolen items is that since law enforcement can't observe everyone all at once, the penalty needs to be enough of a deterrent to make the bad behavior unprofitable overall, to discourage it even in cases where law enforcement isn't there to witness it and enforce said law.