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]

Same here. My last Airbnb customer was from Nigeria, and they stole my bed sheets and all of my towels.

That is surprising. My last Nigerian Airbnb customer was an absolute prince.

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

[karmatic]

As a landlord, I don't care if you all are or not, quite frankly.

I have no problem with not renting to you, if it reduces my risk. The culture of groups you are part of is not my problem.

Re:It's my house though

[Sir Holo]

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

There are laws against that. Lots of them.

Re: It's my house though

[sunking2]

Once you use a listing service that opens it to the public then there are all sorts of rules and laws that follow. Want to keep your rules? Don't use a listing service. Rent only using word of mouth to people you know. Rent to whomever you want, but don't advertise it to people you have no intention of renting to. That is what is illegal.

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]

"In any case, anytime anyone practices such âoediscriminationâ in the free market, he must bear the costs, either of losing profits or of losing services as a consumer. "

Often, discrimination pays well.

With nightclubs in particular, enforcing a dress code for the purpose of removing most black patrons can result in wealthier clients, and higher tickets. Some restaraunts get less hassle, better tips, and less monopolization of tables by large groups, as well as fewer dine and dashes. That's why many restaraunts require pre-pay after 10, or won't split the bill for large groups (so they can hold any one person liable for the bill if several run). Those policies tend to mysteriously not get enforced when you have a white family show up.

There's an assumption that when you fire the customer you make less money. That's far from true, and in many cases, the reverse is true. Many "customers" aren't worth it.

Re: It's my house though

[ShanghaiBill]

I doubt if any of these people really rent on Airbnb, because people "stealing stuff" and even "trashing the place" are NOT that big of a problem. That rarely happens, and when it does, the replacements/repairs are easily affordable.

A FAR bigger problem is undeserved bad reviews. A one-star or two-star review can cut your bookings in half and cost thousands of dollars over the following months.

I have rented to black people several times, and have never had a problem. They were friendly and quite tolerant of little problems that cropped up.

In my experience, the absolute worst guests are French people. They complain about everything, and act like entitled jerks. I have had French guests leave bad reviews because of rainy weather, or heavy traffic from the airport, as if that was my fault. I guess they feel they are getting even for what happened at Waterloo.

Note to French people: America had nothing to do with Waterloo. That was the British.

Re:It's my house though

[Tom]

Oh I love it when Ignoramus Anonymous trouts of free market nonsense.

When is the last time you saw an actual free market? You know, the one with an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect transparency, zero handling costs and no barriers of entry?

That's right, the whole free market thing is a purely theoretical model. It is not a real economical theory. It's the economists equivalent to the physicist saying "let's ignore friction and assume a perfect sphere in a vacuum..."

You need to adapt it to the real world or you are in for a hell of a lot surprises.

Re: It's my house though

[Tom]

Interestingly, on the other hand in porn and swinger societies, black men seem to be quite popular. There's probably a mix of the exotic and forbidden at work, as well as the fact that it's generally a safe environment with other people present.

Thanks for the link. I always find it fascinating how complex and full of different aspects a topic becomes once you move beneath the surface and dissect causality.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

This is the kind of dress code that's used:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix...

Generally, it's enforced in clubs that have issues with "hoodlums". Clubs that have significant populations of affluent black patrons rarely feel the need. They target saggy pants, wife beaters, backwards caps, "do rags", etc.

It's a way to shift the demographics of the club.

Re: It's my house though

[arth1]

Suck it up.

No. Sucking it up is acquiescence and condoning the behavior. Work to influence others to behave better, and to show you're not like them, because unless enough people do, it will continue to affect you and yours, fair or not.
A black person who doesn't speak up against black people who behave in unacceptable ways is no better than a cop who doesn't speak up against police brutality or a white person who doesn't speak up against racism. You may not be required to, but if you don't, things will not change, and you won't garner a lot of sympathy. If you help sustain status quo, even by "sucking it up", you're part of the problem, not the solution.

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???

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.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[ArylAkamov]

Yes "Tempest451", if that is indeed your real name.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Tempest451]

Rings hollow from yet another internet racist. You can say you do anything from the safety of your keyboard.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[karmatic]

"Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces."

Well, sure, there are plenty of them.

"They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed."

Not particularly. I'm racist in person, too. I can sit there hiding, or I can work to proselytize. Most people are racist to some degree - it's amazing how people behave when they are in private, particularly if you start with things that they have already started to observe on their own.

"They have to live and work around "dirty" minorities and can never tell them what truly think of them."

The issue isn't that "minorities" are "dirty". The problem is that statistically speaking, there are differences in median IQ between populations, and that culture is a function of that population. As IQ tends to correlate reasonably well with the ability to function in a modern western society, "minorities" tend to bring with them higher crime and other societial ills. Diversity compounds this.

"Their world gets smaller and smaller everyday until the internet is all they will have left."

Not particularly. Have you seen the alt right recently? It's getting more and more acceptable to be racist in public, and the internet is making it easier and easier for us to mobilize, organize, and recruit.

For those of us who want intellectual honesty and race realism, the internet has been a godsend.

Re:My house

[OzPeter]

leave it to California to add retarded regulation to anything. Their district 9 judges need to fist themselves for their unconstitutional over rules. Sorry your state is filled with a fuckton of whackjobs, it shouldn't have a say in one thing. Welfare state, you're beneath me and your so called population.

So you think the Ninth Circuit consists covers just California? There's 8 other states and 2 other territories that disagree with you. The full Ninth Circuit consists of

Ninth Circuit Districts
1. Alaska
2. Arizona
3. Central District of California
4. Eastern District of California
5. Northern District of California
6. Southern District of California
7. Guam
8. Hawaii
9. Idaho
10. Montana
11. Nevada
12. Northern Mariana Islands
13. Oregon
14. Eastern District of Washington
15. Western District of Washington

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/j...

So when you talk about whack jobs you need to be a bit more specific. Because whack jobs from California are a totally different breed to the whack jobs from Montana.

Great news

[frovingslosh]

That's great news. We can't let people rent their own property to who they choose. They could end up discriminating against people who they believe will steal stuff or trash the place.

Racists or nazis?

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Why is it that businesses are only required to enforce certain rights?

Equal and fair commerce for all races and religions I can understand.

I can even understand how corner cases crop up where opposing rights come into conflict - not having to make a wedding cake for gay people, for instance. It wasn't entirely clear which right had precedence before the courts sorted it out.

But businesses are allowed to curtail freedom of speech in any way they want. Facebook bans conservatives more than liberals, Google implements a "fake news" filter that's specific to Breitbart, twitter shadowbans people so that they can't be certain they're being suppressed, Berkeley effectively bans conservative speakers, the list goes on...

I'm not talking about speech generated by the companies, such as CNN or Fox or HuffPo. They're employees are paid to produce speech with a specific slant - I get that.

I'm talking about companies giving average people a forum for their speech, but then imposing rules about insults and impolite speech. And then enforcing the rules one-sidedly to promote a political agenda.

The nazis used to have book burnings, and the situation at Berkeley sounds a lot like what the nazis used to do in the beginning. People at the riots seem to think that beating people is OK, although I haven't heard of anyone being beaten to death yet...

Why do we force people to give commerce without regard to race (or religion, or a handful of other characteristics)

...but not freedom of speech?

Re:idiotic

[h33t l4x0r]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe criminality is more closely correlated to socio-economic forces than race. When you adjust for income your argument completely falls apart, and that's precisely what what we're doing when we sell or rent a commodity at a certain price/rate.

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.