Slashdot Mirror
Airbnb Hosts More Likely To Reject Guests With Disabilities, Study Finds (theguardian.com)
A study by Rutgers University has found that travelers with disabilities using the travel hosting service Airbnb are more likely to be rejected and less likely to be pre-approved. From a report: A Rutgers University study of nearly 4,000 requests for lodging on the home-sharing platform found that guests with blindness, cerebral palsy, dwarfism and spinal cord injury were refused at rates higher than people without disabilities. In some instances, hosts who claimed that their homes were accessible were also more likely to approve guests without disabilities, according to the research published Friday. The report raises new questions about the ethics of Airbnb's business model, following the #AirbnbWhileBlack scandal that dogged the company last year, centered on revelations that African American guests were denied access at disproportionately high rates. While traditional hotels must abide by anti-discrimination laws, startups such as Airbnb have been able to skirt longstanding regulations by arguing that they are technology companies and platforms that aren't liable for the actions of their users.
When you have a system based on individual discretion without accountability you'll find all sorts of bias.
Libertarians might argue that we shouldn't do business with people who are treating others unfairly. But in the same breath don't think we should monitor and report on the toxic behavior of private individuals. Without exchange of information how could their utopia of a free market really work?
My advice is to be an affluent able-bodied white male (straight or passing). That avoid quite a few problems in life, and gives you a little bit of an edge in society.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Most homes aren't handicap accessible. So I imagine hosts with houses with lots of stairs, etc. would have no choice but to turn away some handicapped people. Also, many people might fear that their home might even be dangerous for someone who's blind, deaf, etc. I used to live in a house that had a balcony with a low railing, for example. I sure wouldn't have wanted a blind person out there without someone to warn them.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Looking closer at the article, it appears that it didn't. Here's one quote that stood out:
Some hosts told guests in wheelchairs that they could come only if they had someone who could carry them up stairs.
Well...yeah. The host probably wasn't trying to be an asshole there, he was just being honest about the fact that his house wasn't wheelchair accessible. Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house? These are private residences, not hotels.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'll play the devils advocate here:
These are private residences
And some are investment properties, rented out through Airbnb as sources of income. Should they be made to comply with ADA regs the same way all other small businesses are?
Have gnu, will travel.
Yeah, it used to be like that. "Sorry, you're black, you can't use the toilet, there's one 50 miles down the road, bye". Fortunately we've come a long way since then. Not far enough, but even with agent orange in charge, let's try not to roll back too far.
let alone making everyone bend to their issues.
But that's not how the law works. Anecdote:
They opened a new post office in my town. The parking lot immediately in front of the door is very narrow. A few diagonal spaces with a VERY narrow driving lane behind them. So they put a couple of handicapped spots at the corner of the building. Very wide, van accessible. Lots of room to back up, or drop a ramp at the rear of an accessible van. But some slob with a handicapped permit bitched because they were an extra 50 feet from the door. "Nope. My handicapped spot HAS to be the closest to the door." So they took them out and converted several diagonal spaces for handicapped use. You can't really park a long vehicle there. And you sure can't drop a ramp off the back of a van or unload a mobility scooter from a trunk. But now, fatso has the closest space. Never mind that, once inside the building, its a lot more than 50 feet to walk. So someone with serious cardiac or COPD problems would have to use a scooter anyway.
The problem with accessibility regs is that there aren't always good standards. You have to make an effort. But if someone doesn't think it's good enough for them, you get your ass sued off.
Another anecdote, similar to the one above:
A restaurant had a sidewalk/curb in front of their door. The curb rams were at the corner of the building, so that's where the handicapped spots went. Someone bitched "Not the closest spaces!" So the restaurant had the parking lot repainted to move general parking away from the front door. The handicapped spots stayed where they were (not going to jackhamer all that sidewalk out). Fatso still has to waddle exactly as many steps. But now at least, its the closest spot. So no lawsuits.
None of this shit makes any sense.
Have gnu, will travel.
How about a pharmacy that simply dispenses pills you need? How about the grocery store? What if all the water, electric, solar / gas / coal delivery etc, garbage collection, phone, or sewer companies are private?
Can they all just decide they don't like serving people "like you"? And you die for lack of meds, lack of food, lack of heat... whatever? Really? that's the society you want to be a part of?
"A surgeon that says "I'd rather let you die than treat you" obviously [...]"
shouldn't be licensed to practice medicine.
"I think I'm far better off taking my chances driving over to the next town than to have someone who wants me dead cut me open."
Whereas I think that its beyond unacceptable for the scenario to arise in the first place. The patients should not be shopping for a doctor that is willing to treat 'their kind' while literally bleeding out. I suppose they should comparison shop pricing too? Right? And read yelp reviews or something.
"In different words, your own example shows the utter folly of your political position."
I seem to recall an idiom like "Be aware of the log in your own eye before pointing at the splinter in someone else's." that applies nicely here.
Get back to me when 'all those businesses that never received taxpayer support' have built their own infrastructure (private roads, not on the power grid, no internet connectivity, self contained septic and water system, etc.). Also, make sure the owners or their university educated employees all went to private schools (i.e. nobody from a state university or college).
The hoops you libertarians will jump through to justify discrimination.
What is your point? All of those things are paid for in taxes, not some magic money tree.
And businesses pay far more in taxes than citizens, all of their rates are higher.
Nice try, though.
Businesses pay taxes for that.
The excuses fascists like you make for their fascist beliefs.
Then why is it so hard to understand the issue? To use one of your conservative tropes, if you don't want to play by the rules, then you don't get to play.
I'm not a conservative, dingbat. In fact I don't conform with your stupid one dimensional understanding of politics.
If there is any argument against this very rational and LEGAL position, might I remind you that it sounds like you'd like to be a special snowflake in a safe space. We know that couldn't be true, right?
The problem with ADA is that even if you fully comply with the laws, people will still sue you, even for really minor things like having a handicap sign a half of an inch too low (literally, this has happened.) In literally thousands of cases, businesses get sued by somebody who they can prove never even went there, but they settle anyways because it would cost more to fight it.
http://www.recordonline.com/ne...
Politicians and business leaders across America counter that ADA compliance cases are about extortion rather than equal access, because lawyers like Weitz often recruit serial litigants and seek reimbursements for $400-an-hour legal fees for boilerplate filings.
Clint Eastwood fought such a lawsuit and won, but it cost him more than he would have had to pay out otherwise:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...
Note this tidbit:
After only four hours deliberation, the eight-member jury agreed with Eastwood's attorney that Diane zum Brunnen, 51, had not actually tried to use the Mission Ranch resort's facilities in 1996 -- so she wasn't denied access.
However, jurors did find that the inn should provide a ramp to the registration office, a second disabled-access guest room and signs about access accommodations -- improvements Eastwood said were already in the works.
Anyways, it's not as if would be airbnb customers are SOL, they could always go to an actual motel.