In defence of the new Anti Discrimination Policy -- "Kremlin-Watch" Analysis

[Jiw0]

I heard this morning from a guest that she received a message from AirBnB about a new anti racism effort.  So far I haven't received anything myself, but I've since found the press release and the linked report by Laura Murphy. 

I've now read it in full and I think it's an incredibly brave effort on the part of AirBnB.   AirBnB is fully dependent on hosts for their business, and this push represents the strongest effort yet to tell hosts what they can or cannot do in terms of accepting guests. This is very risky from a business perspective, especially when it comes to people who have hosted on the platform for years and will now have less freedom to vet and select which people they allow into their homes.   It is inevitable though:  hosts are in a supplier role to AirBnB, and once the business grows big enough, it gets to tell suppliers what to do.  See Walmart or Amazon: if you want them to sell your product then they'll tell you what to do, and then you better do it, or go find other sales channels.

I think everyone should read the report paper it for themselves, but I'd like to highlight a couple things that have been (slightly) misreported (or not reported) by news sites. 

* The report is a mix of 'research report' and 'policy direction'.  Some things are merely research findings and not yet official policy. But there are other things in the report that actually are (planned) policy.  Often you'd get a report paper, and based on that policy changes would be debated and proposed.  This report is a little of both and it's sometimes not clear what is mere finding/recommendation, and what is hard policy.  That they've done all this in just three months is phenomenal though.

* Most things in the report are very sensible, and actually overdue. Things like diversity initiatives on the part of AirBnB as a company, and establishing more processes and resources to deal with concerns and complaints related to discrimination.  Also the proposal to present guest reviews more prominently and guest pictures less prominently makes sense, as does the push to make hosts and guest specifically confirm that they support the diversity commitment.

* Most controversial are the things that impede a host's freedom to vet and select the guests she feels comfortable with in her house. The report is vague on this. Under "Policy Changes" on page 22 it shows as a policy change: "One Million Instant Book Listings".   That's a goal, not a policy of course.  A policy would be "Hosts have to use Instant Book from now on."  That it doesn't say that likely means that this was given a lot of thought.

I'm assuming this means that AirBnB will just strive to make Instant Book more palatable to more hosts so they will turn it on voluntarily.   This must be the case, because otherwise the next one doesn't make sense: 

"If a host rejects a guest by stating that their space is not available, Airbnb will automatically block the calendar for subsequent reservation requests for that same trip. This feature will be implemented in the first half of 2017."

This only makes sense if InstantBook is not mandatory, otherwise there'd be no opportunity to even reject any guest for any reason.  The crucial part here could be "reject by stating that their space is not available".   That likely means that you can still reject guests for other reasons. (Personally the only reason I've ever clicked 'decline' was because the guest put in fake dates to get an inquiry in, while the actual dates were already booked.  This reason by the way doesn't show as a reason for declining. )   I actually wonder if a lot of hosts don't use this reason out of politeness, when they really meant 'I'm not comfortable with this guest.".  Anyway, that politeness will come to an end with this policy change, but the actual decline rate likely will not.

* You can still discriminate against men.  But only if the host shares living areas with guests, and is female.  (This section seems a little binary in terms of gender, but that does keep things relativly clear. 😉 )

* Finally, all the focus was on racial discrimination, but take a look at the section on guests with disabilities (page 30 in the nondiscrimination policy appendix).  Going forward as a host you are not allowed to ask a guest about his/her disability or the severity thereof, and your also not allowed to 'substitute your own judement' about whether your listing meets the needs of a guest with a disability, and you have to allow 'modest changes' in your house rules such as the guest bringing a service animal.   

Pesonally I think this is actually much further reaching..  It's true that the guest would know his disabilities/abilities a lot better than I do, but frankly I know my own stairs better.  (And they're downright dangerous. 🙂 )  If you're a host in the USA then now may be the time to review if you want that 'accessbile' checkbox on for your listing.   I would love to accommodate people with disabilities, but not under speech-policies that dictate what i can and cannot ask a guest. 

Overall though, I think it's an extremely worthwhile effort, because as a business you just cannot allow yourself to be anything other than welcoming to everyone, like it says in the commitment: "We believe that no matter who you are, where you are from, or where you travel, you should be able to belong in the AirBnB community."    Some bumps along the way in host relations should not stand in the way of that goal.

[Anastasia7]

Maybe it would be a good start by removing 'Kremlin Watch' from your heading.

[Jiw0]

A good start of what?   (Anyway I can't edit it anymore.)

But you know why it's there right?  Kremlin Watching:  In popular culture, the term is sometimes used to mean any attempt to understand a secretive organization or process, such as plans for upcoming products or policies, by interpreting indirect clues.

It doesn't mean that AirBnB is evil (to the contrary), it's a lighthearted jab at an underlying feeling that AirBnB could engage community members more in discussions of policy.   Because discussion on the Instant Book thing has beein going on for a very long time on these forums, with the next step now being press releases, not something on host relations. 

Keep in mind that the underlying vibe may be taken by some (not me) as 'AirBnB hosts are racists'.  A token statement of value and appreciation before going to outside newsmedia may not go amiss.

[Anastasia7]

Call it 'Pentagon Watch' perhaps

[Jiw0]

Hahaha, ok. 

But yes, it's not intended as criticism of present-day Russian government.   I didn't realize it would appear that way so apologies for that. 🙂

[Ephraim0]

Thank you I just read the Policy, However I think you may have misread one part.

Airbnb hosts may: ● Make a unit available to guests of the host’s gender and not the other, where the host shares living spaces with the guest.

http://blog.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/REPORT_Airbnbs-Work-to-Fight-Discrimination-and-Bu...

So it appears to me it is a binary policy. males can only accept male roomates and females may do the same.

[Katka0]

@Ephraim0 thx for the link to the blog. Very interesting!

I have read through it. I agree with most of it, I hardly ever decline any booking request, I like the instant booking feature.

However, I have had an unpleasant experience with a guest recently and I declined the request (simply because I was scared of the guests, their request was full of contradictions, they wanted to pay in cash, asked for unreasonable discounts, when I declined one request I received another from another profile and when I declined that one I received a vulgar reply) so though I am a big fan of "open doors" I still believe that Airbnb should introduce "block a person" where a host could block/blacklist a guest which would mean that the guest cannot make booking in your place. At the end of the day it is the host welcoming the guest in their own home and if there are doubts about the guests we should have a right to decline (I have to add that throughout the whole unpleasant communication with the guest I was really worried that the guest might realize that they can use the instant booking feature and I ended up blocking a day in my calendar to prevent them from doing so 😕 

Also if Airbnb keeps track of the number of blocks, it might also help to count some sort of score, which could help define which guests are trouble. I also believe that the guest reviews should also be worked with more - a guest review score could become a part of the instant booking conditions (for example: I accept bookings only from guest who have review score such and such)

I like the idea of this effort however, the hosts should not lose a right to protect themselves against some guests.

Kind regards from Prague, K.

[Julia66]

Thanks for that analysis, @Jiw0

My thoughts on disabled guests: new builds in the UK, from private houses to schools to shops, have to have a wheechair ramp and a wheelchair accessible toilet.  I have these, but haven't got wheelchair access to the bedrooms or shower, and no alarm buttons.  So I tick No on the Airbnb Disabled Amenity list.  If hosts cannot Decline disabled guests in this way, then Airbnb will have to remove the Disabled Amenity check box.  Then it will be up to the disabled guest to check out the amenities at the listing with the host.  This sounds like a good change as all disabilities vary.  (Some people just want a ground-floor room).

My thoughts on service dogs: at the moment I have a No Pets policy in the Amenities list.  Some guests are allergic to pets, so you have to opt either to decline guests with pets, or accept pets and service dogs and decline guests with allergies who want pet-free accommodation.  You can't do both, not even with a deep clean after pets.  You have to discriminate against somebody.

The same with children: I don't have child safety features and amenities, such as stairgates and blind-pull safety fastenings.  (Not to mention the fact that my beds, sofas, towel rails and bookshelves won't stand up to undisciplined play.)  So I say No Children.

So OK, guest using Airbnb don't have the same range of options that a hotel would offer.

But: the whole point of Airbnb is that guests are being invited into our own homes, by friendly hosts, who can offer all sorts of other extras.  How many hotels would pick guest up at ferries and airports; how many would answer endless messages about transport, tourist attractions, shops, meals, a little bit of self-catering, and once they're here, help them out in ways not possible in a hotel?  Hosts could go on adding to this list for ever.

In the UK, exceptions to the rules for public accommodation are made for people letting out 3 or fewer rooms: we don't have to have fire doors etc, we can cook for them in normal kitchens; (although I do happen to have fire doors etc and a catering kitchen myself, as it happens)  and we even get generous income tax relief.  The government encourages small B&B's.  (I know some local authorities have letting regulations).  Airbnb accepts the same gender rule for private rooms.  We should not have the same rules applied to our own homes that apply to hotels.

Hosts accepting guests into their own homes have to be able to decline guests who aren't suitable.  Too many regulations will deter people from hosting and from listing the more quirky places.

[Aaron44]

Here is a scenario we recently experienced. On our listing we clearly state no children. I get a request to stay at our house for 3 weeks from a mother of two who tells me that her autistic child toddler is just fine. I decline her.

Under these new rules, I would have to take her or have my space blocked for the three weeks. We are not a kid friendly house. I have many sharp things that could wound them. I work from home. My dog is not a fan of children. I put that on there for very specific reasons.  

But now I loose revenue becuase some racist ass hat can't put down his confederate flag and AirBnB decides to punish all of us for his behavior. Great!

[Jiw0]

> Under these new rules, I would have to take her or have my space blocked for the three weeks.

I don't think this is the case.   After reading the paper really carefully I think days will only be blocked if you decline specifically with the reason that the place is not available.  Of course, for many people and cultures a little white lie to decline someone 'Oh I'm sorry, I checked and it's not available' is something people are more comfortable with than the more direct: "Lady, the rules say no children, please go away.".

The rule change means that you have to be more direct, and tell people you're not comfortable with them.  Is that better?  Maybe it is.

This is what I distill from the paper though.  Who knows, chances are many of the new policies aren't fully fleshed out yet in business-process or technical terms.  

Also, you mentioned 'autistic' for the child.  That puts it into the realm of accommodating people with disabilities and the policy changes are lot more draconian on that.   So going forward, hosts better be VERY careful in wording replies, saying that you're declining because your place is not suitable for children, and don't make any reference to autism.  (Referencing it in this comment would be considered suspect, because the child's autism shouldn't be relevant to your point: you have rules for children, not for people with autism.   (Not blaming you, but highlghting how careful hosts will need to be.)

So this hints at why I think this won't make AirBnB a friendlier community:  It forces hosts into very carefully worded communications, much like business have had to do in making sure that communications are worded not to offend and get the PC stamp of approval.   ...on the other hand: I do want to fight racism tooth and nail.  This is really a super complicated topic. 

[Bambi0]

There is no defense of the Anti Discrimination Policy.  It is a terrible business initiative. 

Racism and bigotry are wrong. However, no amount of 'policy' or 'legalism' is going to rid us of this pall on humanity.  Airbnb is in effect, inserting itself, by way of its third party status to these transactions as a courtroom to make cultural policy.  Unfortunately, this tole is not within their scope.  Some hosts may be "confederate ass hats" (love that characterization) but airbnb cannot come up with a policy that will change that. 

The rest of us need the ability to discriminate; that is, to discern whether we open our doors to a guest or not.  It is entirely our perogative.  If airbnb wants to make money in the hand off, they simply can't control it.   I can't help it that China continues to opress people, orphan children and employ them in sweat shops everytime I buy something made there.

A simple policy statement, that Airbnb does not condone discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. would be sufficient.  Probably sufficient to discourage those hosts in most cases. 

I have a personal anti-collegiate bias because I do not care to clean up after any more beer pong parties.  I don't think they can come up with a policy to prevent beer pong parties even though I find that sort of debauchery personally offensive, but mostly because they are reckless with my property.  I can ask my guests to promise no beer pong, but people who play beer pong will lie. I used to be able to speak personally, interview, my future guests over the phone to determine whether I was willing to trust them with my home. AirBnb makes that impossible.  I suspect our business relationship will not continue much longer but it is a choice-to do business together or not.  I wish they could rid of us all the bad racists, xenophobes, and other hateful 'phobes' in the world, and beer pong while they are at it, but I don't think they can with a policy.

[Kelly87]

Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

I doubt Airbnb plans to end all racial discrimination through some policy changes and letters to host, but I think they hope to mitigate to a good degree, and what is wrong with that? So far no policy or request I have seen from Airbnb has been unreasonable. 

[Bambi0]

Hang in there, you will, when you try to claim your security deposit' that they control, but contractually belongs to the host.

I have hosted/rented several vacation cabins privately for over 10 years.  They think they invented it. They did not.  Others in the business do many things better than they do.  The point isn't their intention.  Business isn't about intentions.  Business has a defined scope.  You obviously didn't get the point.  Do you shop at Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc?  You buy goods from oppresive regimes.  You support them with your business.  Does Home Depot employ children?  No, but they do business with countries that do.  Their 'policies' do not apply.  Airbnb is a naive company propelled by its youth to the big time, but they are newcomers to this field.  Vacation renting has been going on for a long time, and they are reinventing and re-spinning wheels. 

It is extremely unreasonable that I cannot telephone interview my potential guests before booking.

[Jiw0]

Interesting comment.   One potential approach AirBnB COULD have taken in response to allegatins of racial bias is just state: yes, some of our hosts and guests are racists, and in fact they're racist to the exact same degree as the general population.  

A percentage of the population are racists either consciously or subconsciously and they don't stop being that once they sign up for any web service, be it Facebook, Twitter, AirBnB, Amazon, etc. 

Then some stuff about their preferred community culture and encouraging everyone to be open and welcoming, but some people will be racist, just like anywhere else.  Don't stay with those people, it's their loss.

Of course they didn't take that approach (although I would find it refreshingly honest and transparent), but I definitely respect that and even think it's commendable in many ways.