[Vivtek]

Well, she's certainly a victim. Which victim? The one associated with Airbnb, at least around here. I think the abbreviation "Airbnb victim" is pretty logical - even if it makes you feel uncomfortably as though she was victimized by Airbnb, which ... well. That's a much tougher question.

[michaelcampbell]

The question is quite simple IMO; the answer is "no, she wasn't victimized by AirBnB".

I've had an apartment burgled so I do empathize with her to some degree, but I have to say the whole thing is starting to take on an air of melodrama and hyperbole that is becoming offputting. It's probably too soon, and I know I'll be viewed as an insensitive clod, but the time to start healing by rising above it and moving on with her life begins now. If she needs some help, counseling, a support group, whatever; that's fair, some do. But if she does, then get those, and stop using the internet as a substitute.

[Vivtek]

Well, the reason this is not as simple as you would like is this: clearly, the original incident was not AirBnB's fault; it was a crime that happened in the same context as any other rental or lease situation, and (as I've posted in volume elsewhere) it happens. I've had tenants, so I empathize with her immensely, but it's still not even close to AirBnB's fault.

So insofar as the original incident is concerned, you're not wrong. She wasn't victimized by AirBnB.

And in fact initially AirBnB reacted quite admirably - until she posted in public. Then AirBnB stopped reacting admirably.

There have been some rationalizations for the fact that all contact with the company ceased except for some apparent invitation for a coffee, there's been a request and no doubt a fervent desire on AirBnB's part that this not be quite so public, or at least if public, not quite so eloquent - so you tell me. When a company cuts off contact with you because you endanger their funding, then lies about it in the industry press, is that victimization? I don't know - but neither do you. Which is why I said it's a tougher question.

Also, I'd really like to differ with you rather vehemently with your oblique assertion that the Internet should be seen as a "substitute" for a real community. Where do you think you just posted?

[michaelcampbell]

> Also, I'd really like to differ with you rather vehemently with your oblique assertion that the Internet should be seen as a "substitute" for a real community. Where do you think you just posted?

It's easy to differ with me vehemently when you're differing with something I didn't say, I guess. Apologies if I was unclear.

I didn't say the internet was a substitute for a real community, I said she is trying to use it a substitute for the help she evidently needs.

Secondly, I posted to a discussion board, to... discuss.

[Vivtek]

I can't think of a way to respond to this without it descending into (probably poorly aimed) flamage, so ... never mind, then.

[badclient]

Then Airbnb stopped acting admirably

How do you know this? Simply from reading EJ's summation of her communication with abnb? Airbnb as a corp cannot release original communication for privacy issues but she can. What does we have to hide?

[Vivtek]

I'm a little confused by your last sentence, but yes, essentially, I know it "simply" because EJ has summarized her communication with AirBnB.

Hiding behind "privacy" (as a corporation? wha?) is probably missing the point.

[badclient]

Hiding behind word twisting and pretty writing by EJ is somehow ok when she could just as easily publish the conversations?

You don't believe the latter would put us(the public) in a better position to judge who all is on tr wrong here?

You believe it is ok for companies to publish communication with a customer? Sorry, I do not--unless it comes out as part of a court proceeding.

[Vivtek]

So your position is she's lying? And you seem quite convinced.

[nirvdrum]

Okay, so she wasn't victimized by AirBnB. The Craigslist Killer also didn't work for Craigslist. I don't think anyone reading the headlines, story, or comments really are misinterpreting what's being said. But it's disingenuous to completely remove AirBnB from the discussion, too. If nothing else, it was a catalyst of sorts. I don't find two blog posts spaced out over a month to be ridiculous and appreciate the caveat she's offering others by doing so. More than that I'm enjoying the honest discussion around security considerations of renting out your home. If it spurs AirBnB to make things safer for its clientele, all the better.