It seems the issue here is that when you are wronged (my guest are way too noisy), you don't have an adequate solution to seek compensation from me, and give enough instances of something like this happening, we turn more towards an outright ban on something that can give rise to the injustice but is not itself an injustice, but which is easier to enforce.

Perhaps if the root issues were given some easy way for one to satisfactorily resolve when they arise then their would be far less support for outright bans.

In general I agree that regulation should be narrowly crafted.

The problem is that any law or rule is only as good as its enforcement. People forget this too often when writing regulations, ending up with rules that are too costly, or involve too much invasion of privacy to get right.

I think the lesson is that you should always consider enforcement when writing policy. It needs to be front-and-center, not a secondary concern. A worse policy may end up being better if it's more easily enforceable.

Sure, but the satisfactory resolution would be that the airbnb host gets the guests to shut up quickly (say within 10 minutes): that's not possible without extra costs and hassle that makes people give up on renting out altogether.

This is a completely reasonable argument. You should absolutely have recourse if your neighbors (short-term or long-term) create a disturbance.

On the other hand, if they behave themselves just as well as long-term owners, then no, you really shouldn't have any say whatsoever about who lives in your neighbor's property.