Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Private Accommodation
In The New York Times, Kristen Clarke writes about her experience as an African-American user of AirBNB:
Though August marks the off-season for tourism in Buenos Aires, I was rejected by the first three hosts I contacted. One host listed the days in question as available but nonetheless claimed my request overlapped with another reservation; another declined without explanation; and a third got back to me after a long delay, claiming to have missed my request. While my fourth request was accepted, the overall experience was a sour one. I am African-American, and because Airbnb strongly recommends display of a profile picture (which I provided) and requires its users to display an actual name, it was hard to believe that race didn’t come into play.
And, she says, it’s not just her:
My experience is hardly unique. This year, the issue of Airbnb discrimination has received considerable attention, especially after African-American users of the service began sharing stories similar to mine on social media using the hashtag AirbnbWhileBlack. A recent study by Harvard Business School researchers found that requests from Airbnb guests with distinctively African-American names were 16 percent less likely to be accepted than those with white-sounding names.
Let us give Clarke the benefit of the doubt and assume that her casual accusation is correct and that four Argentinian Airbnb hosts (or, at least, some of them; details, details) turned her down because she is black. Then, let us further grant that her experience is corroborated by a study that finds state-side discrimination based not on race, but on names that correlate with race (which, I can’t help but note, wouldn’t have affected Clarke). Let’s even go the extra mile and assume that her subsequent suggestions that AirBNB should actively police its hosts for discrimination is actually a good idea and will lead to less racial strife. If we do all that, what do we make of her final recommendation?
Third, Airbnb should stop having users display an actual name or profile picture before booking; that information should be withheld until a reservation has been confirmed. (Airbnb has a feature called Instant Book, which does not give hosts the discretion to reject guests for available dates; by making that feature mandatory, the company could limit the influence of names and pictures.)
Yes, let’s force those racists admit us to their homes, rather than let them hide behind shallow lies and forgo our money. Because that’s what freedom looks like and, of course, it won’t ever be used in ways that Clarke finds objectionable.
Published in General
While I don’t deny that some bias based upon culture (or race) may exist, I am reminded of the lyrics from the Tom Lehrer song called Smut:
Even if this is true wouldn’t the ratings and review system take care of this? Isn’t that the point of AirBnB – maximizing the social networking capabilities of the internet to reduce transaction costs and asymmetrical information?
Agreed,but I think you mean the Wizard of Oz. When correctly viewed, “The Wizard of Ox” is even lewder….
Because “Freedom” means I can force anyone to do what I want without regard to their feelings or beliefs. If you don’t want to do that, don’t offer your home, car, services, expertise, or any marketable skill.
Sorry, Ms Clarke, but I want to know if I’m opening my house to this guy:
What we are essentially discussing here is profiling. It seems to me that anyone offering a service in which someone comes to your home and stays there for a period of time, that you not only have the right to profile them, but the obligation to do so. “Open Borders” to your home is as bad an idea as open borders to your country.
You’d sure think so:
Cancellation fees
More than 7 days before check-in: The cancellation fee will be waived for your first cancellation within a 6-month period. Then, for every additional cancellation within that 6-month period, you’ll be charged $50 per cancellation.
Within 7 days of check-in: Airbnb charges a $100 fee for any reservation canceled within 7 days of check-in.
We’ll automatically deduct any applicable cancellation fees from your next payout.
Other penalties
You could talk about Lord of the Rings
We have rights of free association. We have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If I have a business and want to institute a dress code, I have the right to do that. Or all these outmoded ideas?
I haven’t participated in AirBNB, but would not do so without the ability to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That reason might well be that I don’t want a young, single person, regardless of color. It’s my house and I might not want unmarried couples sharing a bedroom–I can certainly do that when it’s a friend or relative staying. I would want the right to refuse service to someone I just don’t like the looks of, since that person would have somewhat free range of my house while I’m asleep.
Hmmmm….I might have just described why I don’t participate in AirBNB! Taking away my rights as a homeowner to control what goes on in my house is another good reason not to.
Oops!
I am a late adopter of Uber, signing up just last night as I sat on a commuter train that had been held in the middle of its journey due to a “trespasser incident on the tracks” (which is code for “someone committed suicide by getting hit by a train”).
I exited the train into a Newark, NJ night. It wasn’t dark, however, as I discovered that Newark uses not just streetlights but floodlights to illuminate the sidewalks. I used the Uber app to request a ride, and I was surprised to see a picture of the driver provided. He appeared to be black and/or Hispanic, and I agreed without giving his race a second thought.
As I had provided my pasty-faced picture, though, I did wonder whether my race entered into his decision to give me a ride. Minorities themselves often will behave in a “racist” manner by preferring to deal with whites in such situations.
At any rate, Clarke’s solution is an awful one. Liberals (I am assuming she is one) love to embrace technology unless it makes them uncomfortable by violating some of their cherished liberal principles. In the case of Austin, TX, which effectively banned Uber, the principles were over-regulation and the protection of entrenched unions.
Why stop at Airbnb? Perhaps Tinder should be prevented from displaying profile pictures. Wouldn’t that be fun!
This might be easier if we start at the other end… What are the ok reasons for discriminating against someone?
The legal liberty to refuse anyone for any reason has not existed in my lifetime.
Why would you want to force a person to open his or her home if that person doesn’t want you there? I sure wouldn’t want to stay somewhere where a person didn’t want me. This is not your typical business transaction.
Or Franklin Pierce.
So, Argentinians are racist and the American government needs to solve that problem!?!
Having lived overseas (though not in South America), let me tell you, racism in other countries is overt in ways that even a conservative like me finds shocking.
You will be a guest in their country, you don’t get to lecture them about how they want to live to someone that is opening up their private home for you stay in.
It has, just in relatively narrow circumstances.
Why ya gotta put me on blast like that RA?
There is no “fair” way to define discrimination as it butts up against the kinds of objections perfectly reasonable people might have.
One of many reasons why I think people should be free to discriminate in any way they like. To the extent that they are wrong to do so, it will cost them in opportunities lost.
We do this anyway. I cannot be forced to marry anyone regardless of my preference. Basketball teams prefer tall people, and mosques do not hire mormons to lead services. We all avoid “shifty-looking” people who might have an entirely innocent neurological disorder.
Life is not fair. Legislation and regulation will not make it so.
Oh, I know I promised never to post our private pics of you, but it was just so a propos.
Absolutely. Europeans are shockingly and openly racist in ways that make Americans cringe.
At least we try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
There was once a debate on Ricochet regarding a story about regulated airport taxi drivers refusing service to certain customers. The drivers in question were, of course, Muslims. Here’s one such story. Believe it or not, there was one member who argued on libertarian grounds that Muslim drivers should be able to refuse service to Jews.
Indeed, life is not fair. I once met with an job applicant who had to explain to me at the very beginning of the interview that he was not drunk, but rather that his speech was slurred due to cerebral palsy. He was hired, by the way, and he still works here.
Oh well of course Muslims should be allowed to do anything they want, including refusing cakes for a gay wedding and then throwing the gay couple off a rooftop while tied to a chair, setting their wives on fire, and beheading me.
I agree that taxi drivers should be able to pick their passengers. They do it anyway, and not all passengers are equally desirable.
Would I be offended if someone who dislikes me based on the fact that I am Jewish declined to sell me a ride? On the contrary! I would be relieved.
A great example. It is good that he understood he had to explain it.
It seems that the fundamental issue at play here is a person’s right to be a jerk. We’ve made various decisions as a society that we don’t like jerks who:
discriminate against offering and providing employment, housing opportunities, business, and civil services to people who look different from them
discriminate against offering and providing employment, housing opportunities, business, and civil services to people who have a different religion from them
discriminate against offering and providing employment, housing opportunities, business, and civil services to people who have come from a different place on the planet, etc.
discriminate against offering and providing employment, housing opportunities, business, and civil services to people who are a different sex from them
We had wars of religion and intolerable abuses that caused great civil unrest to back up our thinking on this subject and direct a limit to which we will tolerate people being jerks.
Now we can add to the list of prohibited jerks those who don’t approve of or are willing to accommodate another person’s sexual preferences or identities.
The list continues to grow. The most recent expansion for gay marriage was largely pushed by the courts and not by the legislatures.
This is not a debate about the merits of gay marriage, LBGT rights, etc.; I use that because it’s the most recent case.
The point is at what point in a free society do we allow people to be jerks if they want, and at what threshold should the state play a role picking sides?
I favor clean lines. People should be allowed to be jerks if they want to. Just like they are allowed to sin in all manners of ways. Judaism and Christianity try to convince people to try to be good – we do not force them.
Oh no we don’t. That died in the 60’s.