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.