[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.