Dear Air BnB staff,
It does indeed seem like you actually read the comments last time, which I approve of and am relieved about. However, I do think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken; creating a disporportionately burdensome response to the amount of broken; or, if it is fully, broken, making it our responsibility when it should be yours. You've created an incredibly complicated fix that I don't think is really hitting a home run and you could do better. I will accept it for now, but I don't see it as a permanent solution and I am very hesitant to go back to hosting with it. But I will try it, because I have to.
Since you've asked for our thoughts, here's my honest assessment as one of your hosts who also believes in your brand. I know most of these this time around are vitriolic. I will avoid that.
Let's talk about a physical factor, first of all:
The current solution causes untimely situations with unreallistic resolution deadlines and puts the burden on the wrong party. I, provider, have to call you, umbrella company, in the limited amount of time between a booking and the resevation date while an "I won't show my face" incident is in progress, for a solution. When, previously, it was a customer's job to call *after* an incident, to report discrimination. This just doesn't seem practical. (What if I have to work? What if the booking is for an hour from now?) You'll likely need more staff to deal with this in a timely fashion--more expense for you, probably to an impractical degree, and if you don't do it, you risk alienating your providers and confusing/angering your guest-customers with unprofessional explanations of what's going on (from similarly confounded hosts). You're forcing providers to personally interact with you, the third party booking site, because you're allowing customers not to interact with the provider. Seems like a terrible business expense, both financially and in terms of provider goodwill.
Look, I get it, you're trying to make the company as profitable and clean as possible in prep for running an IPO. So you're catering to changes shareholders and news media would care about. But that's not going to float your business in the long run. You need good fundamentals. Me and my house will be here in thirty years. Will your company? Let's think about duty to investors (hosts) in that way for a moment.
Your business fundamentals are a select group of liberal, kind people who care about traveling in a modern way. You don't have to let everybody in on either the host or the guest side. Making the most money and being a Unicorn company is not what this service is about. You don't have to scrape the bottom of the bucket to look better for shareholders--that's the exact kind of crap that is violently deplored by the type of people your business previously/currently caters to. You're a light for us in an increasingly despotic corporate landscape, please don't break our hearts by doing that.
Legally speaking, I do honestly believe that in-home hosts are "allowed" to discrimiate on various means, regardless of what your policy says, so you may get hit with a lawsuit about that if you push it too far. This is important because you are, almost certainly, also legally responsible for ensuring certain degree of safety for your contractors (hosts). That is probably a more fundamental legal responsibility before discrimination, at least in the USA. So you could get hit with an even bigger, worse-tasting lawsuit there. (Regardless of if your TOS forces an arbitration agreement--that won't hold up in court, the Consumer Protection Agency struck that down for financial advisors, it'll strike it down for you too.)
In other words, both edges of the coin have risk, but I think one is more damaging in the long run, and I personally think "not protecting hosts" is more reputational and financial risk than "not doing enough to combat society's racism," even if you are a becoming big evil company whose international base is in Ireland to dodge taxes. (Thanks, updated TOS!)
"Air BnB doesn't have enough controls to prevent rape and death of hosts" is a LOT worse as a media headline and congressional oversight committee talking point than "Air BnB allows racists (but they're kinda working on it)." Worst-case scenario, but still. That's what we think about, as Single Female Hosts (many of whom live in places were rape and minor theft cases won't be followed up on by the police, so it won't matter if we know the guy's name or you know where he lives).
You can wave your non-discrim policy around all you want (and it is a policy with good ideals, it is true), but your policies do not trump the law. Saying it over and over won't change that, and I expect better from you than that.
Society is racist/ableist/etc discriminatory, especially in America and Asia. You're not going to be able to erase that or fix that by yourselves. One person offered the solution of giving hosts badges on their profiles that state "I am okay with LGBT/minority/foreign/all religions". I think this is a GREAT idea that could avoid micromanaging human behavior, give vulnerable groups safe and clear options, all while allowing a reporting system to continue in a smooth and simple manner when an issue does arise. In short, it is realistic and makes the least amoutn of people mad while delivering the most potential benefit across the board.
That solution, by itself, would still be more than the rest of the hotel and tourist industry does at large aroudn the world, so you could still be considered quite progressive while not putting anyone at risk. Both sides get something of about equal proportion while maintaining what we all like about this place--I think that's way less risk of all kinds than making the hosts feel over-burdened. Light touch, and all that.
Of course, you can still follow your non-discrim policy by saying, 'if you are a racist etc please don't come here.' I think offering a positive reward for the behavior you do want plus a policy and reporting system that fends off what you don't want will get much more done than a heavy-handed, convoluted approach that makes many of your providers (hosts) uncomfortable providing service and feeling unheard and discriminated against. (The irony!)
I, personally, view the positive/ward off/after-fact resolution approach as actively combatting problems and would appreciate it the most of all the options. (If you've got some experts around, maybe talk to some about reward system behavior and how badly group punishment is recieved for individuals who aren't involved in the original problem? Not to be sassy but...if you've got the money, you should do it.)
I do think profile photos should be necessary--and clearly, from the beginning. (Non-discrim policy is one part of your ideals and no-anonymity is the other part. Both have to exist for the system to be in balance. Both groups have to be responsible in their own ways and that is it.)
While I'm here, I do feel like mentioning this: Really all we're asking for is a return of our own sense of safety. Don't sit there, as a company, arguing semantics of "what really makes you safe" vs "what people makes them feel safe". Don't be that guy, seriously.
The customer is always right, so please remember that hosts are also your customers. They are your B-to-B customers. You can't pretend their feelings don't matter, or try to strong arm 'options' to dictate to them, while saying 'the B-to-C customer is always right, B-to-B partner!' No: We aren't equal partners, your hosts and you. We can't negotiate that way and you shouldn't use punative logic on us as though we are just another big evil corporation fighting for an extra billion. Both sets are your customers. Both sets are the little guy. Remember that, and things will go smoother in the future. They will for me, anyway.
Thanks for listening. Hope it helps. (fight the power, little employee reading this)
Anyway, TLDR: Don't let people opt out of being transparent; that's not the kind of community I want to run, metaphorically or IRL. Don't let people opt into racism; don't let them opt out of transparency. Empower their best selves without shooting yourself (and us) in the foot, please.
