Most everyone on HN is going to agree with what you are saying: that there is a reasonable narrative in which "EJ" is unable to return to her home due to fear. As a recent victim of a comparatively pathetic "violent" crime: that is absolutely something you are concerned about. And that's before we even get to the topic of "can EJ repair the damage done to her home without diminishing the expected return from a settlement with Airbnb", which might also keep her out of her house.

So yes. Let's all agree: it's not crazy to acknowledge that "EJ" is trapped in a set of circumstances keeping her out of her house.

However. That does not mean the only interpretation of events here is that "EJ" is fundamentally unable to return to her home. Another possible interpretation is, she lawyered up (good for her), and has been advised that the longer this remains an issue for her, the better her negotiating position is.

I've seen half a dozen replies from you saying she probably has a lawyer and is trying to milk this, without a shred of evidence, other than "that's what you would do."

I think presenting that theory once is more than enough - you don't have to reply to everybody with your theory.

Again with the attempts to factionalize the discussion. "If you're not with her, you're against us!" It's weird. Why do you feel the need to take sides?

I don't see an attempt from the GP to factionalize the discussion, at least in the comment you replied to. But I do see an attempt from you to factualize it.

> I think presenting that theory once is more than enough

It's the first time I read it.

> you don't have to reply to everybody with your theory.

And you didn't have to post this reply. But you did. It's almost like we can comment on things, and reply to them.

If you think he's spamming, flag it. Otherwise, enjoy that his comments are at least contributing to the overall discussion, and not worthless comments bitching about constructive comments.

Oh, the irony.

No.

Even if she didn't "lawyer up", she wouldn't return to her home for feeling unsafe until everything is cleaned up and restored. Especially since she got friends and family to stay with. Especially since she's probably waiting to see how much AirBnB will reimburse her. And especially cause she's probably going to find a new place to live after all this and I wouldn't blame her. They defiled and shat on her home.

Now if she did "lawyer up", and her lawyer advised her to do pretty much the same thing, then it's all the same, right?

So what's your point? That she's exaggerating the condition she found her home in? Really?

We can go on forever about possible interpretations, but all those quotations are making you look bad. What proof do you have that EJ is "EJ", and that Troy is "Troy" and that this is a "conspiracy" and were an "angry mob of white knights"?

Angry mob of white knights? Are you sure you're replying to the right comment?

It's just another assumption. But again, what makes you think there's a lawyer involved too?

A lawyer wouldn't be your first call after the police if this happened to you? It sure would be mine.

No, and neither did this guy, Troy, who also called airbnb. I don't think its a good idea to counter with more speculation.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that EJ has at least as much legal representation as I'd have any time I ended a lease with a significant security deposit, and if you don't think that's reasonable, I don't care; I simply think you're wrong. The world will nonetheless continue turning on its axis.

It may be surprising to you but a lot of people are not so lawyerly. I myself have never used a lawyer for a personal matter despite many situations where it sounds like you would. It's just not my thing I suppose and I don't believe I'm alone. Not saying it's better or worse.

I would immediately have a lawyer involved as well, but then I can't imagine finding myself in EJ's position to begin with, i.e. renting my home out to a complete stranger without even a background check. I think we're dealing with a rather different mind set here, and not the "lawyer up" type.

Possibly, yes. But since there are so many other potentially fishy aspects of the story, let's spend our time focusing on those instead of this one.

Huh? "Fishy"? Please stop talking like that. Neither Airbnb nor "EJ" owes us the complete objective retelling of exactly what has transpired between them. When "EJ" doesn't recount absolutely every fact that isn't completely favorable to her cause of action, that doesn't make her a crook. She isn't on trial, and you aren't a jury.

But the result is that Airbnb is taking a PR beating. So if EJ is intentionally misconstruing the facts (or Airbnb for that matter) it is important and relevant.

Look, I'm not saying they [Airbnb] are doing everything right. But at the same time, the renters have got to take on some responsibility for handing out their keys to strangers; yes that's what you're doing, is that a surprise?

This isn't all on EJ or all on Airbnb. Clearly the responsibility goes both ways, but while neither side is absolved of responsibility, EJ must back off on laying the blame on Airbnb so intensely and without remorse. Previously she stated they offered "emotionally and financially" support and were extremely helpful, only now there's veritable lynch mob has she backtracked on those statements.

Still I think Airbnb has a lot to answer for: their statements have been inconsistent.

The notion that "EJ" is in any way responsible for Airbnb's PR is one of the toxic premises leading to the "team Airbnb" vs. "team EJ" nonsense populating these threads. It leads directly to the notion that anything said about "EJ"'s case that isn't 100% favorable to "EJ" implies that she's dishonest.

>But at the same time, the renters have got to take on some responsibility for handing out their keys to strangers; yes that's what you're doing, is that a surprise?

It's a good point but if AirBnb can't take measures to mitigate these horror scenarios and all the onus is on renters, then they can kiss their stratospheric valuation goodbye. Who's going to want to participate in this service with even a 0.01% chance that they will sustain $1000s in damages? The risk wouldn't be worth it.

Much like Ebay took measures against cheaters, AirBnb should create measures in case of nightmare renters (valid ID, credit card, etc).

She "backtracked" once the co-founder started talking to her about taking down her blog or changing it to put a positive spin on things. Before that she was only talking to the CS reps/CS manager, who were offering support (emotional mostly it seems) & asking how she was doing, etc.

No, it wasn't when the inquisition came, it was in response to the airbnb post. We've gone through this already, llambda. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823714.

And as I've said, ulisesroche, that is one side of the story. No more likely to be true or accurate than the other based on the available facts. In your own words: we've been through this. How long is it going to take for you to admit we just don't know the full story? What will persuade you that it's possible EJ has reframed the situation just as it's possible Airbnb has done so as well? Your insistence on standing up for one side is really where you've gone wrong here. I maintain that neither side is at fault. It's tiresome to see this become a debate over "he said, she said" hearsay evidence.

I'm correcting you, that's all. How can you say you're neutral and then present only one side?

Well, Troy provided pictures but probably EJ's nearly-identical story must be false.

Right?

A home is invaded; robbed. Personal property is destroyed or stolen in the process.

This happens everyday. Homes are cased, the victims watched, their habits noted. Ultimately they're broken into. In some instances criminals look for homes where the victims appear to be on vacation and set up labs.

What do rational individuals do? They call the police, they change the locks, and they carry on with their lives.

The difference here of course is that Airbnb is involved and thus may be obligated (legally or ethically) to provide restitution.

That said, what they cannot do, is fix the victim. They can't repair the damage done to EJ. If that's what she's insisting on, then it's an impossible, irrational goal. That just isn't Airbnb's responsibility.

You paint EJ as someone trying to blackmail or strongarm AirBnB for restitution. If you read her first post, you'll find it's a warning to people to be aware of the dangers of renting out your house to strangers and that AirBnB glosses over the dangers - she does say that AirBnB had been very helpful - there was nothing negative about AirBnB's response at this point - EJ was in fact very complimentary. EJ was in the process of getting on with her life.

Where it has all gone wrong - is that AirBnB started stating that they were going above and beyond to help her after that first post. But, in the background, according to EJ, AirBnB cut off support and allegedly asked her to take her blog post down because it would affect their funding.

That is what people have been slamming AirBnB for - that ham fisted way of dealing with a victim. It's nothing about whether AirBnB is responsible for the crime (obviously not), nor is it about EJ trying to leverage a payout (not that either). The'outrage' is purely around either AirBnB's inexperience in dealing with a crisis (at best) or a desire to try and hide a flaw in their business model and protect their funding (at worst).

People commenting that EJ is lawyering up to maximise her benefits, or EJ is just lashing out to hurt people, or that break ins happen all the time ('just get over it') are really misguided arguments IMHO made by people who have not really read and digested EJ's posts.

I think you glossed over quite a few points:

1) EJ specifically points out that there was no way to perform due diligence on the other person. You are inviting someone to use your home, and you normally expect some entity to perform some sort of check on the renter. Craigslist clearly warns people about this, and gives them a good way to contact (via email, even if its obfuscated). AirBNB, for better or worse, hinders people's ability to do this. There's an implication (and I fully agree, having gone through the site myself) that the site is safe, that renters are safe, and that hosts are safe. In that circumstance, EJ is justified in feeling misleaded by ABNB.

2) There's a simple way to fix the situation: provide restitution, recognize fault, and help find (and possibly pay for) a new flat for EJ. They can't repair the emotional damage, but they can at least show that they care about the situation.

3) This robbery is far different from most robberies. In some simple break-in, robbers grab the most expensive items they can find and move on. Rarely do robbers go to the extent of systematically stealing everything in the house.

I think this entire situation would have blown over if Airbnb just apologized at the onset. A simple "we are sorry" or hotline with a person that could talk EJ down immediately would have sufficed. EJ would have felt that there were people in ABNB.

Have you ever had to make an insurance claim or credit card fraud claim? American Express is great about CC fraud, suspending all fraudulent purchases immediately. And with home insurance, one day a tree fell on the house. Called insurance company and I was speaking to an agent within a few seconds, who calmed me down and walked me through the entire process (from getting a hotel to calling police). In both cases, great customer service people make sure that customers are calmed down first. And it was only because they promptly responded that I didnt feel any sort of misanthropic dispair.

My apartment in San Francisco was burglarized in a similar manner,without the assistance of AirBnB. I did not develop PTSD. Based off my own experience, I also find that something seems off about EJ's story. I've found the internet's response at least strange as the incident itself.

Everyone is different. I had my place burglarized some years back and I never felt safe again in the place. I suffered many sleepless nights and would awaken at any sound. This was no way to live "at home" so I moved out and have since lived in "more secure" buildings (condos). It's not a fun experience so I can empathize with anyone that has been through it and isn't the same after. In effect you really do feel violated. Now, some people just say "screw it shit happens," and carry on living in the same place. I tip my hat to you for being able to do so.

Yes it can happen and people deal with it differently. Though I would assume in your case that you didn't hand over the keys of your house to the burglars.

Calling a locksmith would have been the one of first thing I had done in her case. But doors are pretty useless when it comes to burglary.

Would you mind telling your story?

My landlady saw a crackhead in our yard but since SF is filled with zorched looking lurkers she didn't think much of it and just told him to leave. I came home from work, and noticed my apartment was a real mess and my TV was missing. Went to the closet and noticed everything was dumped out and an old laptop was missing. I actually found the laptop in a garbage can next to the house. The thieves did a few weird things like steal my pillows and dump out items from the fridge. I went down to the cop shop and they said there was a string of burglaries where the thieves were using dudes from the park to act as lookouts and then take the blame later. My landlady and I actually went down to the park and found the crackhead guy riding around on a kid's BMX bike. He said he didn't do it but that he did know where my TV was.

Her case was a bit different. During the stay, she developed a relationship with the guest, exchanging e-mail messages while her home was carefully vandalized and her valuables stolen. I can see it could be a very traumatic experience.

I once was robbed at gunpoint and it took me weeks to get back to nomal. I am still very careful when I have my notebook in my backpack.

Yeah it was different, but my home in SF was ransacked and guys on drugs were involved, so it was also "similar."

I have been robbed at gunpoint in Emeryville too, that was a worse experience.

sorry, do you have metal doors there in SF? as we do in Moscow, Russia. the doors that can be opened only with the help of special forces

Metal doors are not really useful if all the houses are made of wood. Seriously.

I don't get it either, there was this fairytale about the big bad wolf, but I guess they must all think "hey at least it's better than straw", or something.

It's a really strange experience. You don't notice until you see the first solid stone house after two weeks of flimsy wooden cottages, it's a feeling, solid. "Stands like a house" is a saying in Dutch, meaning "solid as a rock", except in the USA it wouldn't make much sense :)

CA has building codes that address the probability of large earthquakes.

For a single story house, wood (if I understand) is a safer choice than other heavy materials which would crush you. In SF, there are different building codes as the buildings tend to be more vertical.

I'd guess that half the apartments in SF are in old wooden houses, with wood doors.

i'd say, i'd feel unsafe there even if such a story didn't happen to me... or, while there are houses of thin wood, maybe you are allowed to wear/keep a gun?

Keeping is not just allowed, its our natural right.

Wearing is, as well, but it's waiting on another SCOTUS decision for affirmation.

It's only your right until the next referendum to ban guns in SF, then you're in legal limbo until the state supreme court strikes it down. Rinse, wash, repeat every few years.

As for carrying in SF, only people named Feinstein are permitted to do that.

That sort of thing is not going to work much longer. Now that the 2nd has been incorporated against the states via McDonald, bans like that are outright illegal. I expect the first time a public servant is held personally liable for damages via a 1983 civil rights lawsuit we'll see an end to it pretty quickly.

There are a handful of cases which ought to end the question on carry in the next year, as well. Either Williams or Masciandaro may do so this year providing SCOTUS grants cert.

So then why isn't she going to accept one of the offers of help, which might have included a place to stay for a while? It's perfectly understandable that she doesn't want to be in her apartment, but she seems to want us to believe that she has to choose between being there and being homeless. That's just silly - at the very least, there are hotels, and I suspect that if she put up a donation button on her blog she would get more than enough for that.

I'm not saying that it's sketchy, just that it makes her seem like a very irrational actor. Which could be completely believable - maybe she's gotten a bit paranoid, or is having issues trusting people, both of which would be perfectly understandable - but when combined with the conflicting stories and lack of definite information (and all the conflicting information out there), it seems odd.

Possibly because to the extent that she isn't running afoul of any duty to mitigate damages, the longer she goes without accepting help, the greater her basis to claim damages.

That doesn't make her sketchy or dishonest. That makes her rational, following the advice of her lawyer or whoever else is advising her.

Having had that exact situation happen to me (a burglary), neither my wife nor I acted anything like this. And yes, I understand that everyone reacts differently to these situations, but she seems like she seriously needs some professional help (which I would argue also is ok; different folks, different needs), that she is willfully NOT GETTING, but rather airing emotionally-laden tidbits for the masses to consume as a substitute. I agree with the OP here; something is tingling my skeptic-sense on this one. Of course, maybe I'm wrong.

I think this obviously different from your garden variety burglary. For one, I think the owner is questioning both her ability to make good judgments as well as trust other people and services. This is in addition to the helpless feeling of being burgled.

EJ actually said as much in both of her posts — that although she's having the place repaired and the locks changed, she feels helpless there.

One thing strikes me as really odd: how naive do you have to be to leave documents and valuables in an unsecured place and then let complete strangers use your apartment?

You mean like most people do on communities like AirBnB and CouchSurfing?