[ggreer]

It's nothing so silly. As a counterpoint to the Examiner's piece, please read Airbnb's post about the proposed law: https://www.airbnbaction.com/an-update-for-our-community-in-...

Basically, the city wants to hold Airbnb responsible for user-generated content. The city also wants Airbnb to hand over users' personal information. Both the EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology think that these requirements violate federal law. (Though EPIC thinks otherwise.)

[ot]

> Basically, the city wants to hold Airbnb responsible for user-generated content.

Airbnb gets paid for the rentals, not for the listings. Also, they actively control the content (try putting an URL in the listing). Mistaking Airbnb for a publishing medium for user-generated content seems disingenuous at best.

[bduerst]

I think it's a false dichotomy to say they're either/or - why cant't they be both?

If they're actively controlling user generated content, then it's obvious they benefit from better content.

[CodeWriter23]

That's a specious argument and AirBNB is gonna get spanked hard on that one. Also, the CDA Safe Harbor never intended to shield service providers that receive direct monetary benefit from user content itself.

[ap3]

Don't all sites derive a monetary benefit from the content - be it page view ads or valuation?

[CodeWriter23]

That's an indirect benefit.

[swehner]

I read it. Quite wordy. Not much difference. To call ads "user-generated content" is a bit of a stretch, no? After all, "AirBNB" is much a party to the transaction.