> Airbnb had a plan, and that plan was to boldly deny all responsibility, to flat out ignore the human consequences of their flawed model...
Even if they did, how is the model flawed? I don't understand all the heat Airbnb is getting - after all, they were upfront with that disclaimer and hadn't tried to persuade their users that there's absolutely no risk... Or have they?
How is AirBnB different, as far as responsibility is concerned, from a classifieds paper that publishes adds for apartment rentals? Or from Craigslist, for that matter.
I mean, vilifying them for asking the victim to take down her blog (_if_ it's true) is one thing, but blaming the vandalism on Airbnb is completely different and something that I don't understand.
No-one is blaming Airbnb for the actual act of vandalism.
They are different from Craigslist because they take a percentage of the transaction. This makes them a participant in the transaction and this is important in legal terms.
The heat is mostly because young, inexperienced and overconfident executives overplayed their hand and then tried to salvage the situation by blatantly and very obviously lying about what their position had been 24hrs earlier. It was astonishing to watch and caused quite a feeding frenzy.
Even if they did, how is the model flawed? I don't understand all the heat Airbnb is getting - after all, they were upfront with that disclaimer and hadn't tried to persuade their users that there's absolutely no risk... Or have they?
How is AirBnB different, as far as responsibility is concerned, from a classifieds paper that publishes adds for apartment rentals? Or from Craigslist, for that matter.
I mean, vilifying them for asking the victim to take down her blog (_if_ it's true) is one thing, but blaming the vandalism on Airbnb is completely different and something that I don't understand.