Airbnb's impact on cities
I know this isn&#x27;t the main point, but airbnb lost me a long time ago with statements like this:<p>“If it becomes law, this legislation would threaten thousands of low- and middle-income New Yorkers with fines of up to $7,500 simply for listing that they would like to share their homes,” Airbnb fumed.<p>By &quot;share&quot;, do they mean a quid pro quo exchange of goods and services for money?<p>It&#x27;s nuts to call this &quot;sharing&quot;, and I don&#x27;t think this is quibbling about words when people at pro airbnb rallies chant &quot;sharing is caring&quot;.  Of course they&#x27;re trying to grab the emotional connotations of &quot;sharing&quot; that exist outside the commerce world, which include friendship, generosity, and a wish to help others.  I don&#x27;t expect airbnb to stop this bit of manipulation, but I do think the mainstream media should certainly stop referring to the contract &quot;you may stay in my house on the condition that you pay me the price I have specified&quot; as &quot;sharing&quot;.  An argument by ambiguity uses the fact that words have more than one meaning, but honestly, I&#x27;m not sure how &quot;sharing&quot; even applies at all to such a clear cut unambiguous example of commerce.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Equivocation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Equivocation</a><p>There they go again, claiming that governments are regulating or fining &quot;sharing&quot;.  No, they are regulating <i>commerce</i>.  They are threatening fines on businesses that fail to properly comply with regulations on commerce.<p>Airbnb&#x27;s corporate-speak is pretty brazen.