r/technology • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 7h ago

Society New Airbnb rules ban hosts from making guests wash dishes, do laundry & other checkout chores

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/new-airbnb-rules-ban-hosts-from-making-guests-wash-dishes-do-laundry-other-checkout-chores-3420832/
26k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

577

u/crxsso_dssreer 7h ago edited 7h ago

that's the american "discrupt" model:

Uber, illegal taxis: "but we're just an app".

Airbnb, illegal hotels: "but we're just an app".

That's how they circumvente regulations... and of course it's allowed because they bribe lobby politicians and it's still marginally useful since somehow cheaper than the legal offering...

197

u/Lincolns_Revenge 7h ago

No need to cross out "bribe" at this point after the Supreme Court's Snyder decision. Assume cash gifts are being given to politicians at the federal level because they are now legal without an overt quid pro quo before the fact. And that money doesn't have to go to their political campaign coffers like it does with lobbying, they can buy a Ferrari with it or whatever they want.

Like the ruling on presidential immunity, it's just fucking baffling and indefensible.

99

u/Kriegerian 7h ago

John Roberts is the worst chief Justice since Roger Taney and in the end he might be even worse. He’s openly doing everything he can to empower a pedophile fascist oligarchy, since that’s what he and his fellow Klan members were put there to do.

2

u/Corbin_Dallas666 5h ago

Sure but he is having his cake and eating it too, they face no real consequences

5

u/Kriegerian 5h ago

I know. That’s why, absent you can’t say that on Reddit what we do is publicly destroy his legacy of being anything other than a cheap partisan hack and fascist hired goon. He so obviously and so desperately wants to be seen as the face of wise and impartial justice, so we punch him in the place where it obviously hurts the most and isn’t illegal: his legacy and his reputation.

12

u/MoonBatsRule 5h ago

It's really quite sick. Uber could say "hey, politician, I am Uber. Here is a thousand dollar donation because you are so great. If you continue to be great, I have an additional million dollars that I could donate. By the way, here is some legislation that I would like passed."

Then, once the legislation is passed:

"Hi politician, I really think you were great, as a show of my appreciation here is a million dollars. I think we have a nice relationship, I may come back to you for help in the future".

As long as there is no explicit quid pro quo, this is 100% legal.

2

u/Perryn 5h ago

Quid pro quo - "Should have hid it better."

Quid post quo - "A perfectly fine and valid way to buy a politician."

30

u/IndyDude11 7h ago

Not hard to understand the somehow when you understand the taxes that are being evaded by the distinction.

15

u/crxsso_dssreer 7h ago

I also feared I was being watched or video recorded. Never again.

You are absolutely right, I forgot that, taxes, professional insurance, safety regulations...

5

u/Chataboutgames 4h ago

Honestly? Good. It's not like groups like Uber are unique in their ability to lean on politicians. Taxi's would fight like Hell to keep their standards of service shitty and to be protected from competition.

It's why people embraced Uber so enthusiastically, because in most areas taxis provided absolute shit service.

1

u/Rapierre 4h ago

Except that is mostly just America. Most other countries simply made it so that Taxi drivers also get Uber requests. So you have a chance of getting some random dude's car or a taxicab

4

u/licuala 3h ago

Uber broke a gridlock where taxi services did not have healthy competition (nor sufficient presence in a lot of areas or at certain times of day) due to what has been described as a cartel, maintaining high prices and a poor standard of service. So, this criticism,

lobby politicians

Is more strongly evident for conventional taxi businesses over decades than it is for Uber. While Uber and Lyft have undeniable problems, I think on the whole, we're better off for having them. A cheap and reliable ride-hailing service reduces cases of impaired driving, increases economic activity, improves mobility for those who can't or won't drive, reduces the demand for parking... there are a lot of positive externalities.

2

u/K_Linkmaster 5h ago

The rules can apply to these companies in a simple ruling stating: the same rules apply. They have applied the whole time until someone ruled they didn't.

2

u/starm4nn 4h ago

Uber, illegal taxis: "but we're just an app".

Comparing Uber to Taxis doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The whole reason Taxis were regulated the way they were is because when idle they'd block the road.

Uber's model was always closer to the Private Car model.

1

u/16semesters 4h ago

Don't forget DoorDash, Instacart, Etc.

Delivery drivers employed by a restaurant get guaranteed wages, guaranteed reimbursement for wear/tear on car and gas, and auto insurance provided by the employer. You were a W2

With Doordash now delivery drivers get literally none of that. So even if you're making 25$+ an hour DoorDashing, you're still doing way worse than delivery drivers used to do.

1

u/brokoli 1h ago

Fck monopolistic cab licensing model though

0

u/Kriegerian 7h ago

Yeah, Doctorow explained it in the book, but you can also see it with basically every gig economy app.

-2

u/WackyHumanSlop 4h ago

If you use Uber, you are objectively a bad person