by parsley on 4/15/14, 9:28 PM with 84 comments
by brownbat on 4/16/14, 12:04 AM
It seems like I should be able to give a neighbor's kid a 20 to pick up some leaves without getting the government involved. It seems like I should be able to give a friend a dollar for running and grabbing me a coke without consulting minimum wage laws or local sales taxes. I should be able to lend my cousin some money without registering as a bank.
A business hiring leafblowers or messengers with a "no questions asked" policy, or even an individual loan shark, seems like the law should get involved.
The internet as a communication platform blurs these lines. It lowers the barriers between strangers and acquaintances and friends. It lets private individuals behave like businesses some of the time. It lets small transactions rapidly scale.
I don't think one set of intuitions is necessarily right or wrong. But I think these conflicting intuitions make some people libertarians towards businesses like airbnb and uber, and other people think those businesses are just profiting off of skirting regulations.
by tpeng on 4/16/14, 12:05 AM
The real issue is that AirBNB also imposes these risks on communities (i.e., AirBNB's customers' neighbors) by exposing them to, in the worst case, criminal elements, but even in a normal case, temporary renters who lack incentive to follow social norms or respect communal property.
This doesn't mean that AirBNB's business can't work, but it does mean that AirBNB needs to work with regulators to find a solution acceptable to the communities in which it operates. Such a solution would most likely be a combination of technical solutions to minimize bad outcomes and perhaps a tax on AirBNB, the proceeds of which could compensate communities for the externality imposed by AirBNB.
by rch on 4/15/14, 10:55 PM
This seems like a more compelling point than the title topic.
by RV86 on 4/16/14, 12:52 AM
What used to be a standard of 25% has approached 45%+ in a very short amount of time in cities like NYC, San Fran, LA, and more. Wages have stagnated and tenants are doing everything they possibly can to afford to live in their city of choice. For politicians to go after AirBnB is to miss the underlying problem.
by 001sky on 4/15/14, 11:13 PM
but for those skimming the comments or who missed the hyperlink:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/14/hookers-using-airbnb-to-use-apa...
by dkarapetyan on 4/16/14, 12:25 AM
by frandroid on 4/16/14, 12:12 AM
by mturmon on 4/15/14, 10:21 PM
"Prostitution wasn't really at the top of our minds when we passed the 2010 law helping NYC enforce against illegal short-term rentals, but in hindsight it seems kind of obvious."
You have to admit, I think the enterprising minds here at HN also failed to foresee this.
by jhonovich on 4/15/14, 11:09 PM
by moron4hire on 4/15/14, 11:18 PM
by pbiggar on 4/15/14, 11:46 PM
This is a standard part of success: criminals hack the system. Much like AWS being used for bitcoin mining, and every cash-in-cash-out system being used for money laundering.
by honksillet on 4/15/14, 11:27 PM
by maxwell2022 on 4/15/14, 11:27 PM
by aalpbalkan on 4/15/14, 11:14 PM
This is textbook 'slippery slope' fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
by vijayboyapati on 4/15/14, 11:20 PM