The author highlights why Airbnb is the right company to use to talk about it.

> Often arbitration clauses are invoked in cases where consumers feel they have been financially slighted—seeing charges on their phone bills for services they never wanted, for instance—but the Times investigation found arbitrations used in more serious cases of medical malpractice, theft, hate crimes, and discrimination. The Airbnb situation highlights how far the practice extends.

Other companies (like car dealers) have used arbitration for smaller scoped purposes, but Airbnb is essentially opting out of the 14th amendment.

>It's a problem. But Airbnb is not the right company to use to talk about it.

Why?

Because you'll get lost in a whole discussion of discrimination, if it's Airbnb's responsibility to prevent, if homeowners have the right to discriminate. If Airbnb is even legal, etc, etc, etc.

(For example look at some of the comments in this thread that are talking about discrimination, when the topic is ostensibly arbitration. It should be two separate discussions.)

Either talk about it in a Vacuum (without any particular company), or at least pick a case that is more "pure", i.e. unequivocally the company's responsibility.

It seems like the two topics are correctly being linked. Airbnb is trying to use arbitration clauses to avoid having to answer any questions about large-scale discrimination. Why should it be talked about in a vacuum?

Because you can solve (try to solve) the discrimination issue without ever touching the arbitration issue. But the problem at hand (specifically the problem in the article) is arbitration.

Mixing two topics, and then solving the wrong one is a very common and effective debate and political tactic.

> without ever touching the arbitration issue

It's a strange world where Air B&B can use arbitration to shield themselves and then when this tactic is pointed out people say "no you can't talk about that, it muddies the waters". The arbitration is absolutely relevant.

> Try buying a car without agreeing to arbitration - you can't.

I did. I refused to sign the arbitration agreement said I was walking out. They didn't like it but didn't like losing a sale even more.

AirBnB is the perfect company to use to talk about it. In general, racial discrimination in rentals is a historic problem. If AirBnB wants to be the platform for "rentals of the future" they are going to have to be responsible for the degree to which they enable discrimination.

It's a one to one transaction and very hard to prove.

Race isnt specified and many user profiles obscure the face. Instabook books automatically without host approval.

And then after the host finds out who it is, magically that date is "unavailable".

You get dinged HARD for canceling as a host.

> AirBnB is the perfect company to use to talk about it. In general, racial discrimination in rentals is a historic problem. If AirBnB wants to be the platform for "rentals of the future" they are going to have to be responsible for the degree to which they enable discrimination.

You realize the "it" in your sentence is "arbitration", while the rest of what you wrote is about "discrimination"?

Your sentence is a perfect example of why Airbnb is exactly the wrong company to use to talk about arbitration.

(This article is about arbitration. I'm not implying people shouldn't talk about discrimination, just that the headline is quite misleading.)

It may not have been clear in what I wrote above, but arbitration relates to systematic violations precisely because arbitration prevents pursuing class action suits. It is in that regard that AirBnB is relevant.