Tell HN: Airbnb now opts in your name and photo to data sharing

> Essentially a good chunk of people do care so little about discrimination, that it's difficult for them to believe that others actually even care about it.

Some of us care somewhat (i.e. I'm proud to have convinced my boss to hire that female IT technician from another country who was mopping our floors. It took some convincing but he gave in. She got paid as much as us and got a career here in the west (I know because she later married a friend of mine). I've also tried elsewhere to help others to a career in IT, not sure how far I have succeeded in other cases, but in at least on case I gave away my well paid but boring job to make sure another less privileged man got a fighting chance. I visited him last year and he had usef his opportunity well. Oh, and I helped my neighbor down the street to a better job and tried to help his girlfriend. In the end she got a good job through other channels but I tried and I tried so in a way that was appreciated, not in a creepy way.)

All that said: that doesn't mean I won't say virtue signalling when something like this happens.

Oh. And the irony of me virtue signalling so heavily to get my point through :-) At least my identity is only known to me and Dan, so I can't cash out on any stupid internet points I get.

It's important to remember that corporations don't have motivations, only the people in them do. In a corporation like this you could have one person who really cares about racism, one who doesn't but thinks this is good PR, another who doesn't but thinks it's a good excuse to collect the data so they can do other things with it and so on. In a company that size it's indeed likely that people with all of those motivations exist within the company.

And someone may rightly want to call out the people who are only doing it for the PR or the data collection, but we don't have visibility inside the company to know who they are in particular, so the blame goes to the abstraction of the corporation itself. Which it deserves if it hired those people even if it also hired some separate people with better motivations, because those people are still then going to capitalize on racism by marketing their claimed virtue to customers, or do bad things with the data.

Your comment also reflects a common type of “parrot” response — any critique of activities in this space gets the critic branded as “uncaring” or even worse like “racist.” Don’t think that AirBNB should send your photo to a third party to be racially described, and think that AirBNB couldn’t give a shit about you and is just doing this for PR points? You must not care about “white supremacy.”

Do you think it is possible to be suspicious about the motivations of faceless corporations driven by a profit motive without be accused of "caring little about discrimination" / labelled as a racist / misogynist / anti-LGTBTQ?

> “ In this case, at it's face, to see a statement that Airbnb is collecting data to investigate if their platform is being used for discrimination - and then reach the conclusion that the most logical reason that Airbnb is collecting data is not because they want to know if their platform is being used to discriminate, but that instead it's just a ruse; they don't care and really just want to collect facial data in order to look like they care about discrimination to gain some side benefit.”

This is a good model of most human behavior though. Creating elaborate systems of social norms then covertly coordinating on how to evade them or politically argue about how some group gets punished for violating them, while another group gets to violate the norms but reap benefits.

The economist Robin Hanson has developed a pretty comprehensive social science body of theory under the name “homo hypocritus” for this and uses it to explain a lot of behaviors (see just four examples below).

It’s totally reasonable to disagree with Hanson’s theory, but I think you are going way too far to treat it almost like paranoia or conspiracy theories or something.

In fact I think given the way corporate scandals, dark patterns, rampant privacy violations, etc. are so egregiously common and often go unpunished, it should be the norm to assume harmful intent from corporations unless proven otherwise. Classic studies like Moral Mazes would seem to confirm this.

Examples

- https://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/07/13/robin-hanson/who-car...

- http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/08/inequality-is-about-gr...

- http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/showcare.pdf

- https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/robin-hanson-on-lyin...

No, the problem is that the same data can be used at least as easily to discriminate, and people who care about that don't like it.

Do you really want to build a race database?

Do you want Airbnb making determinations about the intention of your actions based on a secret race database?

The timing isn't accidental; they even state as much in the announcement. This is driven by current events. I wonder if anyone would give a pass to 23andme if they started oversharing DNA data "to battle covid."

I think it's more likely that Airbnb is indeed virtue signaling. Pretty much every corporation is virtue signaling these days, so I don't see what conclusion you can draw from the use of that phrase itself. It's an accurate descriptor.

A user can care about discrimination and still object to policies that overtly erode user privacy at the same time as they show solidarity with a certain movement.

Ultimately it's my name and my likeness, and I don't want it to be shared without my knowledge and consent. A company can't say "but I'm fighting discrimination!" and expect me to be cool with the violation of my privacy.

Not to mention that the data will be used to classify users based on race, defining people by their appearance rather than their actions, beliefs, and character. There is no guarantee that such data will never be used against the very same users it purports to protect.

Please let me know if I understand correctly:

You can't criticise anything that is purportedly done in the name of fighting racism?

AirBnB has a long history of not caring for its users, unless they get bat PR. So yeah, if anything, thinking that they actually care about discrimination is a bit naive.

'Virtue Signalling' is not about whether someone 'cares' about racism, it's about wether their actions amount to anything material or relevant.

Almost everyone actually 'cares' about racism, at least in classical, crude forms. If someone calls a black person the 'n-word' - almost everyone 'cares' enough to know this is wrong.

But there are any number of people who Tweet this, say that, or even take some action that is utterly irrelevant to the material nature of advancing the cause, but a the same time, they are embellishing their own position or status.

'Personal Branding' is the living job of every actor, politician and political figure. That's 95% of their job. The statements they make are mostly about engendering to and audience.

A good example is the Gavin Newsom's wife, who has declared that she will be the 'First Partner' - and not the 'First Lady' of California because the term 'Lady' is 'exclusionary'.

I don't doubt there's materiality to her statement; she probably does 'care' about the issue on some level - but I doubt deeply that her actions matter and that this is mostly an opportunity for her to make a 'public statement' that the press will like, hop on, propagate, which endows here with 'progressive credibility' to possible voters. I significantly doubt she would ever do such a thing outside the context of the political lens. To boot - it's also counter productive because the term 'Wife' or 'First Lady' is in no way exclusionary. It's gendered yes, but no more so than we used gendered pronouns 'he' and 'she'. It's 'invented equality' that serves no purpose other than a nice bit of PR. That is 'virtue signalling'. [1]

A very excessive, fascist example of 'Virtue Signalling' from the Mayor of Oakland just this week. She initiated an FBI 'hate crime' investigation into some ropes hanging from a tree in the park. Those ropes were there to hold swings for kids, ironically put there by someone in the Black community. Nobody had complained or thought this 'kids equipment' was symbolic of anything, there was no public intrigue - but the Mayor took it upon herself to make a big fuss about it. To make the situation 'scary Orwellian' her public statement was that 'Intentions Don't Matter'. Read that again and consider the consequences. A swing set in a park in her view, is construed as a 'hate crime' irrespective of the fact that it's merely a swing set, not indicative of anything, placed there by a black man, in which nobody had any complaints. This is the Mayor of a major US city, who has initiated FBI investigations which could destroy people's lives, for absolutely no reason. [2]

The reason this is 'Virtue Signalling' - is because nobody outside of political theatre cares and the issue is irrelevant. Why was it only the 'mayor' who had to invent non-existent hate crimes? If there were any legitimacy at all to the situation, others would clearly be concerned. But there was no concern. The excessive, fascist reaction by the Mayor is therefore vapid, it's utterly political. It's an attempt to engender her credibility as a 'force against racism' - even at the cost of using the power of violence of the state over common sense. But like Trump supporters wouldn't condemn him 'if he shot someone' ... her supporters won't condemn her for her ridiculous display either.

A less extreme but more relevant example would be Alexandria Occasio-Cortez total rejection of Amazon's bid for a major HQ in NYC. Both the Democratic Governor, and 'far left' wing Democratic Mayor were both 'extremely' in favour of the opportunity, with Amazon to bring in thousands of very good, high paying jobs, along with so much incremental surplus. They were to receive the same support from the city/state that any other company gets. AOC rejected the offer because of Amazon's unwillingness to work with her directly by making $$$ investments in schools, and other things. Ironically, even the majority of people of colour in her district supported Amazons bid which puts her at odds with basically everyone that matters. Amazon is not some 'evil corporate devil' - they're a big, succesfull company, and the elevated taxation and incidental business from them is probably the closest thing any city could get to 'organic development' - which is to say 'things working well as they should' without having to resort to arbitrary distributions of wealth etc.. AOC knows this. In any other condition, I believe she would probably support Amazon's bid - but in a political context, she defines herself as an antagonist against 'evil corporations'. She can't 'support Amazon', that would be akin to making a deal with the Devil, at least in her popular, bombastic personal branding. From a marketing perspective, AOC is exactly on point to 'fight Amazon' even if in reality, it's possibly the best thing that could ever happen for her district (I understand it's not all roses, but overall, it would be good). So this is a toxic example of 'Virtue Signalling' wherein we don't doubt the ultimate sincerity of the individual, but where their motives are inconsistent with their actions, which are actually detrimental.

Finally - though we don't use it in this context too often, 'Virtue Signalling' could be equally applied to other things such as flag waving by fools who actually don't materially care about the nation, or those who espouse Christianity but really are the furthest thing from it. Donald Trump holding up a Bible (upside down no less) for a photo-op a few weeks ago is a repulsive form of 'Virtue Signalling' because, though surely he thinks he cares about America and probably thinks he's a 'good Christian' - the man probably hasn't been in a Church in 20 years and generally has nothing to do with it.

Every corporation is in the business of perception. AirBnB has a very expensive PR agency who will oversee their public announcements. Every politician and celebrity has power because they have carefully shaped their public image, not because they have necessarily 'done anything'. In many cases, they are 'talented' or 'are business with good intentions' or 'have accomplishments' but it doesn't matter - if they are going to be playing the 'message spinning game' we should absolutely be cynical. If they want something from you: sales, popularity for their career, votes - they are marketing to you.

[1] https://time.com/5499825/newsom-first-partner-first-lady/

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ropes-resembling-nooses...

Not everybody will see that email though and they are probably relying on that. I am sure, given the choice to opt in, most users would not (regardless of the cause) - Similar to Apples new anti-tracking in iOS 14

Few people just opt in to having their rights violated

At this point in time I'd say that opt-out is a dark pattern.

It's really only done because they know few people will voluntarily opt-in to something like tracking or profiling.

Given the usual "Your privacy is important to us" guff this makes their privacy terms look even shadier.

Same concern here. I don’t think it was actually deleted from their database. Just flagged as deleted.

On the very last page of the process it said Airbnb might need to contact me to prove I made the request. I don't trust them either, but it's certainly better than the "deactivation" they were pushing.

> Did you really delete your account because they want to measure whether people are being discriminated against (with an opt out available)?

Man, this comment and some similar sibling comments betray this mentality where racism is the ultimate evil and, thus, anything done in the name of fighting racism is justified.

In particular, multiple people seem to think you're not allowed to criticise Airbnb's approach to handling private data _because Airbnb purportedly is using it to somehow fight discrimination_. Nevermind that:

* There's no transparency about how this 3rd party will use the data

* There's no data on how effective their approach will be.

* The default is opt-in, not opt-out.

* Airbnb has done ethically dubious things before.

Yet, according to some comments, if you don't let Airbnb use your data, you're supporting the racists/being tone deaf.

How is deleting their account worse than opting out? Or are you implying that opting out of their studies is also an awful thing?

Here is a boilerplate you can copy/paste if you don’t want to opt out of the “Project Lighthouse” discrimination study, but only out of data sharing for marketing purposes:

Subject: Opt out of marketing for user <your-email>

Please do not use my information for any marketing purposes, and do not sell my information.

I am sending you this email based on your documented policy quoted below:

> Please note that you may, at any time ask Airbnb to cease processing your data for these direct marketing purposes by sending an e-mail to opt-out@airbnb.com.

>Here is a boilerplate you can copy/paste to email to the above ID:

Very sad state of user friendliness. /rant Please, I beg you don't sell my info.

Yeah, I did this and got my account deleted. I do not recommend it.

Edit: apparently it was a misunderstanding of the operator... account reinstated, luckily.

Thanks just sent.

If so, that would only apply to data kept within the EU, IIRC.

Right, seeing a user's previous reviews by hosts makes sense. I would guess that having a name & face makes hosts more comfortable, although it does allow for discrimination?

This black swan event doesn't outweigh rampant discrimination to me. AirBnB could also just let you submit a list of specific people for this.

Or maybe even make the project, leave it off per user by default and include directions on how to opt in?

There is a direct click on the email that leads you to the setting page. I am using a gmail client, so not sure if the link doesn’t appear in other emails

I always unsubscribe from corporate newsletters, so I don't get a whole lot of them. And in any case, this wasn't a corporate newsletter.

Here’s the email copy. It very clearly states exactly what this is doing. Not sure what text you need to parse here

“ We’ll only use information you already share This project will address discrimination that's based on perception—so we’ll use first names and profile photos from hosts and guests to help us understand the perceived race someone might associate with them.

We’ll use it to uncover patterns of discrimination We’ll use this information to help us understand when and where racial discrimination is happening on our platform. Any insights will be used to help develop new features and policies that create a more equitable experience for everyone.

Information won’t be tied to your specific account We know your privacy is important, so we analyze trends in bulk and Airbnb won’t associate perceived race information with your account. We won’t use this information in marketing or advertising, and it will only be used for anti-discrimination work.

We consulted with and solicited input from leading civil rights and privacy organizations to guide us We know how delicate this work is—so we developed this work with support and input from leading civil rights organizations like Color Of Change and Upturn, along with privacy organizations like Center for Democracy & Technology, to make sure our approach is both thoughtful and respectful of your privacy.

You can opt out in your Privacy Settimsg”

> I had to parse text carefully and use my own familiarity with the industry to understand that they were going to decide my race based on my photo/name

Yup. This is exactly what I took it as. Between this and their other data sharing policies I decided to delete my account.

Same here. That's bad. I would never have known about this otherwise.

Exactly! The AirBNB setup puts both parties in a vulnerable spot. If people are racist let them can my reservation, I don’t wanna see them either!

100%.

Me neither, I had three settings I needed to "update" to prevent my image from being circulated without my approval.

Bad form, Airbnb.

This is to measure the acceptance rate gap overall, not the gap for a specific host/guest/experience. Then, after changing the product, you can measure the gap post facto and see if you actually did anything. You can't change what you can't measure.