Airbnb Gives In To Regulator's Demand To Test For Racial Discrimination By Hosts (theguardian.com)

As part of an agreement with California regulators, Airbnb will allow the government to test for racial discrimination by hosts. The Guardian reports: The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced Thursday that it had resolved a complaint it filed against Airbnb with an agreement that forces the company to permit the state to conduct "fair housing testing" of certain hosts. That means that for the first time the San Francisco-based company is giving a regulatory body permission to conduct the kind of racial discrimination audits that officials have long used to enforce fair housing laws against traditional landlords. The DFEH's original complaint -- which had not previously been disclosed -- was based on research and a growing number of reports suggesting that hosts regularly refuse to rent to guests due to their race, a problem exposed last year under the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack.

Comments

It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there's discrimination. I'll rent to who I want, fuck you!

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone likes anti discrimination laws until a n*gger wants to stay in their house.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many bad experiences are ok before you start doing things to mitigate those bad experiences? Cause it doesnt appear to be working for him.

Re: It's my house though

[ArmoredDragon]

What I've found interesting is that the industry that will do just about anything for the right price overwhelmingly has an exception by most of its practitioners -- no black men under any circumstances.

By that I'm referring to the oldest industry. And yes, even black prostitutes very often have this rule. However many will make exceptions so long as when they speak to the john on the phone, his voice timber/accent doesn't sound black, as that person typically hasn't been exposed to black culture, which is the main problem in their eyes, and not the skin color.

http://forum.blackhairmedia.co...

Here's the most important part:

The strongest proof of this I can offer you is that while most white girls can be persuaded to see a black client if he is well-spoken and/or lives in an affluent neighborhood or stays in an expensive hotel, many black escorts will not see a black man under any circumstances; in the words of Tina (a simply gorgeous black girl who was Flavor of the Month for quite a while), “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Obviously, this isn’t true of all black men; I had several black regulars over the years (including a salesman who saw me about once a week for quite a while), and the only complaint I ever had about any of them was that one poor guy tried so hard to make himself agreeable to me that his skin always smelled and tasted like soap! But what about the rest of them? I’m afraid I have to agree with Tina; the majority do tend to be exactly as she described, and I think the reason they are that way has to do with their subculture. For reasons others are more qualified to analyze than I, the typical male role model for young black men is exaggeratedly masculine, physical rather than intellectual and tends toward violence; he is a sports star, a “gangsta” or a “bad-ass” action hero. And one doesn’t need to be a sociologist to recognize that this self-inflicted stereotype is related to a deep current of misogyny in the black community;

That's pretty much all that needs to be said. Unfortunately, if you try to talk openly about this, you're instantly labeled a racist, which is pretty much THE word to use these days if you want to shut somebody up, especially if that person is white, because once that accusation is thrown at somebody, it's basically impossible to prove otherwise.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

"It has nothing to do with race"

Sure, it does. Race is a conveinent risk-reducing proxy. It's a lot easier to judge someone from their profile pic - if you wait until they arrive to boot them for baggy pants, you're looking at a lawsuit.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

As a racist, I don't have the same morals you do, so it's unfair to hold me to your standards.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with black men also shows up in divorce statistics. About 45% of all American marriages end in divorce. But in BM-BW marriages the rate is about 75%. In BM-WW marriages it is also about 75%. In WM-BW marriages it is about the overall average of 45%. So the problem is with the black man, and not the woman in the relationship, regardless of race.

The lowest divorce rate is among Indian*-Americans at about 15%.

*Indian as in "from India" not as in "native American".

(Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. These matters are not supposed to be discussed.)

Sespool

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me or are all these gig economy companies shady as hell? They treat their people badly, discriminate and generally do things that real non scams can't get away with.

Am I the only milenial that stays in hotels and rents cars or takes taxied when I travel???

Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

California is a prime example of the bullshit that occurs when a state government is allowed to do whatever it wants.
The state presumes to have the right to tell someone they must rent to anyone. Well, fuck that bullshit.

And fuck AirBnB for caving to such bullshit.

If I was going to rent a place I owned, I'd want to make sure that I didn't rent to people I thought would
cause problems, and any other landlord with some common sense would want the same. Only a person
who has never been a landlord could think it's ok to rent to anyone who wants to rent a place. The results
of such an indiscriminating approach can be the stuff of nightmares. Ask any landlord who has significant experience
and you will see they will agree with this position.

In the end, such a law is not really enforceable, because a landlord can always cook up an excuse which
justifies not renting to a person without taking an obviously discriminatory position.

Why Californians tolerate their government escapes me. Don't you people realize that voting can remove
the idiots who want to make your lives more difficult ?

Re:Fuck California.

[DerekLyons]

Ask any landlord who has significant experience
and you will see they will agree with this position.

I have been a landlord - and I applaud California's decision. Because it won't make it more difficult to rent to people who cause problems. It will make it more difficult for racist assholes, but I view that as good thing myself.
 

Why Californians tolerate their government escapes me.

Seriously? You can't grasp why people would tolerate a government that makes life difficult for narrow minded intolerant racist assholes like yourself? You can't grasp why people would tolerate a government who upholds the rights of all citizens, regardless of color?

Well that didn't take long

[Tempest451]

Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them. They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed. They have to live and work around "dirty" minorities and can never tell them what truly think of them. Their world gets smaller and smaller everyday until the internet is all they will have left.

idiotic

[slashmydots]

Certain groups statistically commit more crimes. Why the hell should I ignore math, science, and logic and pretend that's not true? It's my fucking house.

Re:idiotic

[Rockoon]

Imagine people with your colour eyes statistically committed more crimes.

ok I am now imagining that the hazel eye gene is significantly correlated with crime statistics.

You try your best to be a good person, to better yourself, to get on in life... But doors keep slamming in your face.

Smart people slamming those doors. I havent forgotten about the statistical significance yet, have you? Lets see.

You apply for jobs you are well qualified for, but don't even get an interview. Eventually you find somewhere but they want to pay you less than your graduate friends. And you can't take it anyway, because no one will rent to you.

If nobody will rent to me, then that statistical significance must be really significant. Hazel eyed people are apparently the scourge of the earth in the world you have me imagining.

Would you accept that as fair...

no

or would you want the law changed to stop it?

no

Did you realize that a false dichotomy doesnt make your point?
Did you realize that you clearly forgot about the statical significance aspect of the whole thing?

Rational people act on statistical significance. Rational people can also make an argument without resorting to a logical fallacy.

What would you do at that moment?

Life isn't always fair. Deal with it.

Beyond the narrative here, this is government thugs interfering with things for their own personal benefit. You know whats better than Hotel lobbyists giving you free shit so that you go after AirBnB? Better than that is forcing AirBnB into the lobbyist game at the same time.

You should be talking about the oppressive zoning laws throughout much of California, but you are talking about fairness while painting a clever picture that attempts to provoke empathy, and you punctuate that story-time by invoking a logical fallacy, and that fallacy itself is strongly suggesting that you think that people should be forced by government to do the opposite of what a rational person would do, which is to pay close attention to statistically significant data and act in accordance with it.