As a former employee, I don't agree with that. I know it's the prevailing sentiment on HN, but it's not the truth.

Of course it's the truth. There's literally rentals on there, right now, in the town I'm currently living in, that are illegal according to local laws. Airbnb doesn't de-list them, they just pretend they don't know.

Laws pushed by large companies so that others can't compete against them and they are able to price gouge the customer.

There is a large supply of housing that is available to customers that want to purchase it. The idea that two people can't make a consensual exchange of value is antithetical to a free society.

No one's saying that two people can't make a "consensual exchange of value" of legal actions. I can't make a "consensual exchange of value" by paying a mob hitman to kill someone that I don't like.

This is a good thing, and this is not antithetical to a free society.

Did you just compare listing illegal rental on some website to murder?

Laws are laws, your insinuation of general corruption isn't really fair, the onus would be on you to prove that.

Both Uber and AirBnB knowingly break the law as part of their business model.

Zoning doesn't allow the kind of business that AirBnB has, they just don't care.

One could very well argue that maybe the laws need reform (as I do) but that's another story; the inherent ethos of YC et. al. is to err on the side of breaking the rules.

Shitty rules that don't serve people need to be broken. I want to see my property value go up, not down so some hipster developer can afford it.

"Shitty rules that don't serve people need to be broken."

Surely that's true, but nobody can agree on which exact rules need to be broken. :)

So you'll forgive me when I call the police because you're building favelas in your back yard and have 20 micro-rentals.

> The idea that two people can't make a consensual exchange of value is antithetical to a free society.

If you rely on the power of the state to be the ultimate enforcer of contracts and property rights, the state has the right and duty to delineate which contracts it will enforce.

> but it's not the truth

Unless you explain why, you're doing nothing to persuade anyone of anything other than employees at AirBnB disagree with the prevailing sentiment of HN. Having met the founders of AirBnB, I am incredibly skeptical of your claim, but I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

I think the opinion is that they exploit lack of laws in this area. Their business model is built to let people run essentially unlicensed hotels and rentals without those pesky restriction. They could easily prevent this but they have no interest in that. It is growth at all costs; who cares if "regular" people can't find apartments because people are buying them up as AirBNB properties. The regulations will eventually catch-up but it will take time.

>who cares if "regular" people can't find apartments

This is BS. Those "regular" people just want rental market to collapse so they can live in center of the city for pennies.

It's nobody's business if someone rents apartment. If you can't afford it - you can't afford it.

That is a common sentiment. I would be interested to hearing some counter arguments, that might be more productive then just saying it's not true.

It’s a statement of fact.

My town prohibits leases under a week but that hasn’t stopped AirBnb from accepting listings there.

So?

Typical case of "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It".

Why don't you counter the narrative by explaining why not?

You could give us a reason why

not that I'm agreeing, but doesn't the burden of truth lie with the one who made the original claim about AirBnb not caring about laws historically?

Right, but given that AirBnB listed illegal hotels and fought local governments in taking them down, it is fair to say they do not have regard for the law. Further, it is clear that a significant portion of their business relied upon such listings.

>fought local governments in taking them down

Good. If law is stupid company must defend it's interest and at the same time - hard earning hosts too. I don't see which law is being broken if those are fought in court.