For example, in January Airbnb, He reported that a user named Amanda was banned from the platform because of his “close relationship with a person who is not allowed to use Airbnb.” Amanda used her boyfriend’s credit card to rent a house (Amanda has no criminal record). Amanda Motherboard’a, He said his girlfriend’s criminal history stemmed from a “white-collar accusation”, adding that the two did not share an address or bank account.
Airbnb, Two days after the ban was challenged, he announced that he had approved the ban “after careful consideration” to help “protect our community”. It then added that it “will not offer additional support for this case at this time.” While the company isn’t very transparent about how long it enforces this rule or how often it uses it, its procedures require one of two things before a decision can be successfully appealed: the banned acquaintance who caused the ban objects to the ban, or the person trying to hire is “closely related to the banned person”. ‘ claiming that it is not.
Interesting ban, banned from people who are likely to travel with those with a travel ban!
Either way, it’s unlikely to circumvent the subtext of the company’s message: no one who is in a relationship with someone with a history of ups and downs can’t use our platform today.
Airbnb a private company and Amanda might try to book through a competitor or just book a hotel room. Also, we don’t know the exact details as to why her boyfriend was banned in the first place. However, the company’s approach Tech’in it also highlights a more important issue that we can see in other areas as the ability to profile users further develops.
So where to draw the line? Airbnb’nin The answer is that taking the risk, rightly or unjustly, to pressure acquaintances to ban them, could make any hostess feel insecure about using the service. to the thing It seems like a calculation of preference.
Source link
