[nerfhammer]

It's not PR. PR would never be so controversial. This will inevitably stir heaps of outrage from Trump supporters and the Trump administration.

It's as much a gesture to make themselves and their own employees feel good. With something on the order of 40% of tech workers born outside of the United States who may be really scared right now, they may actually genuinely care about their coworkers! And this has the potential to kind of kill the whole tech industry in the US.

[bogomipz]

>"With something on the order of 40% of tech workers born outside of the United States who may be really scared right now."

Every time I hear this, the number seems to go up. Please provide a citation for that number. You are saying all tech workers in the US? There's no way that is possible. You realize that there is a larger tech work force in the US than just Silicon Valley right?

[loceng]

How is this controversial for a company who wants to look good to everyone around the world? Perhaps it's controversial if you think Airbnb only cares about the U.S. market, however if you look more holistically then it's a tiny majority who might be bothered by this.

[petervandijck]

Let me count the ways:

1. It is controversial to employees who support Trump.

2. It is controversial to investors who support Trump.

3. It is controversial to clients who support Trump, and now might stop using AirBnB.

4. They are taking public stance against the president of the US who is known to have a vindictive streak (and his businesses are their competition). How motivated will Trump be to sign legislation that hurts AirBnB?

Do you think this is an easy decision?

[coldtea]

In a time when national agencies (like the Forrest Park department and NASA) are operating clandestine tweet accounts against Trump policies etc, it's not that controversial.

Like gay rights in the 2010s (which no company would touch with a ten-feet pole in the seventies and eighties, but they make grandiose stands now that it's safe except in some backwater redneck communities), it's just the fashionable thing to do.

It's not even like the Vietnam war protests in the 60s, when mostly the young and alternative press were in favor and it was an actual risk.

Now you're on the side with mainstream press, corporate giants, most of Hollywood and show biz (even country acts), major TV channels, etc.

[AJ007]

It could be controversial to investors who are hoping for an IPO in the next 4 years.

Is it controversial to anyone else? Even someone who supports Trump's executive order may consider it reasonable that refugees should be housed somewhere.

What I consider controversial is backing a candidate who actively helped create the current Middle-East crises, supporting the first Iraq War and then the overthrow of the Syrian government.

[jlardinois]

Labeling something controversial isn't a value judgment, it's simply an observation that it's drawing or likely to draw a negative response from a large group of people. The President currently has a 30something percent approval rating. Companies generally try to avoid doing things that could potentially alienate a third of a market.

I'm glad Airbnb is doing this, and I think in the future it will be seen as an important show of goodwill. But the company is certainly taking a risk.

[loceng]

My comment was to draw awareness to the larger picture, to a larger group of people, the whole world of people. If they can look good to the majority of the world market, and of the 30% of people who 'approve' of Trump - who hopefully aren't complete racists and just are thinking Trump's actions somehow prevent terrorism from occurring in the U.S. - hopefully only a small % of those are racists and the others will see Airbnb supporting people who may have trouble finding shelter. It really doesn't seem like a risk at all, and they'll write off the costs and not need to pay as much taxes on the profits they seem to now be claiming pre-IPO. Maybe there's an increased risk if Trump starts tweeting that Airbnb supports and hosts terrorists - however the rest of us will see the drivel that that is and Airbnb will gain further positive marketing exposure. Overall of course, at the surface, Airbnb's offer is good for the people affected by this and for helping the world feel united - however we don't really know to what extent Airbnb really will follow through with their announcement; is it a shallow or a deep offering? Call me skeptical: I've had ongoing issues as an Airbnb host and a guest and Airbnb by and far is only interested in keeping as much money for themselves as possible, obviously to help increase their perceived value until they IPO -- they take a relatively high % of booking fees compared to how helpful and caring they claim to be.

[tofu_icecream]

How many of that 30% do you actually think are in their market though. Airbnb hosts tend to be in urban areas and they have agreed to accept foreign guests in their home. Guests are probably at least semi frequent travelers and usually tech savvy.I don't think Airbnb is as ubiquitous as you seem to think.