互联网与文化medium.com
数字流放：我如何被 Airbnb 终身封禁
Digital Exile: How I Got Banned for Life from AirBnB
2018 — 2019，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
作者因不明原因被 Airbnb 终身封禁，且未得到任何解释，由此引出对平台权力失衡的讨论。文章批评大公司可以随意处置用户而无需透明，用户申诉无门，只能诉诸社交媒体或私下解决。
为什么经久不衰：它戳中了平台经济中用户面对巨头时的无力感与不透明治理的普遍痛点，如今读来依然切中要害。
HN 评论精选
批评客服政策不透明且随意，导致普通用户无力，而技术娴熟者可通过社交媒体获得例外，加剧不平等。
我对这个具体案例的事实没有特别看法。但如今客服的设置方式有些奇怪：1）公司不喜欢处理问题用户；2）公司制定政策称可随意处理且无需解释，这样处理问题用户更高效；3）被制裁的用户更沮丧，因为他们甚至得不到解释；4）懂技术的用户会转向社交媒体或个人网络获取特殊待遇（参见每次有人在 HN 发帖说 Google 账户有问题然后获得特殊干预）；5）公司很高兴，因为仍有非正式变通方法；6）用户比拥有合理支持渠道时更无力、更沮丧，但公司不必在意。这很不理想，OP 关于权力失衡的评论很到位。
decasia查看英文原文
I have no particular opinion about the facts of the specific case in question. But there is something weird about the way customer service is set up these days: 1) Company: Doesn't like dealing with problem users/clients. 2) Company institutes policy saying that they can do whatever they want with no explanation. This makes it more efficient to handle the problem users. 3) Sanctioned users are now more frustrated than before because they aren't even given any explanation of what happened. 4) Users who are tech savvy take to social media or use personal networks to get special dispensations (see: every time someone posts on HN about a problem with their Google account and gets special intervention). 5) Company: Is happy because there is still an informal workaround for dealing with sufficiently motivated users or weird cases. 6) Users: Are left more powerless and potentially frustrated than when they had more sane tech support channels, but the company doesn't have to care about this. This seems really suboptimal and the OP's comments on power imbalances seem on target. [edit: formatting, wording.]
个人经历表明在 Airbnb 遇到问题后投诉流程繁琐耗时，用户往往选择私下解决而放弃公开反馈。
我们最近在尼亚加拉瀑布租了一栋房子，照片上不错，但评论说有点旧。到达时淋浴坏了；一小时后警察来了，因为有人报告财产被闯入；第二天早上电力公司又因被解雇的前物业经理报复而断电；最后发现房子上有警方通知，称该物业被用作非法度假租赁，任何人占用都违法。我们收拾东西去了附近酒店。想到要向 Airbnb 投诉退款，我想象了作者遇到的完全相同的情况，也想到提供证据要浪费的时间。于是我们接受了房东私下通过 PayPal 退款（含 Airbnb 费用）以换取不留下负面反馈。我们之所以和解，正是因为知道与巨头斗争是什么滋味。最近还为了 600 欧元补偿与英国航空斗争了 24 小时延误，花的时间实在不值得。
avaku查看英文原文
We recently rented a house at Niagara Falls, which looked nice in pictures, although a few people in reviews mentioned it's kind of old. When we arrived, the shower wasn't working. An hour later police showed up, as someone reported property break in. The following day, in the morning the electric company showed up and turned off electricity, at the request of the previous property manager, who was recently fired, and decided to have a revenge. Finally, when we came back after a day at the falls, there were police notices on the house stating that it's illegal for anyone to occupy the property, as it was being used as illegal vacation rental. We got our stuff and got out to a nearby hotel, which luckily had prices on last minute discount... When I though about raising a complaint with AirBnB for a refund, I've imagined exactly the same situation as happened to the author here. I've also though about all the time I would need to waste to provide the evidence to the AirBnB... In light of this, we settled for an owner's offer to refund us privately over PayPal (including AirBnB fees) in exchange for not leaving a negative feedback. Take whatever you want out of this, but the reason we settled (and didn't provide feedback which could be useful to other people) is precisely because we knew how it is to fight with the giants. Been recently fighting for a compensation from BA for 24 hour delay, and it's seriously not worth the time I had to spend on getting these 600 euro, as the number of hours spent times my salary is higher.
Airbnb 为保房源供应而对危险房东不作为，即使有确凿证据也只退款不处理，且压制负面评价。
Airbnb 优先考虑房东——甚至是暴力的房东——因为那是瓶颈。我们有过一次可怕的经历，Airbnb 允许一个非常有攻击性且有暴力记录的房东继续营业，那个房源至今仍活跃。我写了长信陈述事实，附上警方报告，指出房东是重罪犯、曾受法院命令接受心理治疗，且房东还使用假妻子的化名经营。Airbnb 的回应是全额退款，却从未撤下房东，也没有发布我们的负面评价。
temp987656789查看英文原文
Airbnb prioritizes hosts - even violent ones - because that's the bottleneck. We had a scary experience where Airbnb allowed a VERY aggressive host with a documented history of violence to continue. The listing is still active today. I wrote them a long letter with facts which began: > I am sending this to make clear in writing that this listing is extremely unsafe for travelers. > We were harassed, feared for our safety, and left early as a result of drunk management on the property. We filed charges with the Maui Police Department for harassment, and we have since learned that the host John [redacted] is a convicted felon who has had the police out for harassment, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest before and has been ordered by the courts to "obtain and maintain mental health treatment or services, including anger management treatment or services, [or] domestic violence intervention". > He has been in and out of court since at least 2004 and was most recently arrested on [redacted] 2014, barely a week before we arrived. I believe that the situation on this property is extremely unsafe and I cannot keep silent in good conscience, even though the host has threatened me and my family. I detailed the event further for a page or so, and sent Airbnb all the prior police reports. The host was even using a fake wife alias to run the listing. Airbnb's response was to refund us our money in full, but they never pulled the host, nor did they publish our negative review of the location. The only action seems to be that they required him to use his own profile instead of the fake wife's profile. So it's much more than just prioritizing hosts over guests financially, Airbnb also prioritizes keeping a profitable host more than keeping guests safe.
平台信用评分体系比社会信用体系更不透明且不可挑战，用户可能因不讨平台喜欢而失去基本服务。
> 这一切是否朝着类似中国社会信用评分系统的方向发展，即不保持高评分的后果会在社会层面造成严重障碍？是的，但至少在中国社会信用体系中，你大概知道自己的分数和应遵守的规则。我预计 Airbnb、Facebook、Google 等会发现维护和货币化信用良好/可靠/尽责/顺从的人员名单非常有利可图。它们的神经网络对你的裁决既不透明又不可挑战。> 我们越来越依赖少数科技巨头来完成基本日常事务。想象有一天醒来，你不再能查看 Gmail、在 Amazon 购物或预订 Uber。正是如此。做任何新企业寡头不喜欢的事，你就成了非人。
cabalamat查看英文原文
> is this all part of an ongoing trend, toward something like the Chinese Social Credit Score system, where the consequences of not maintaining a high rating are socially crippling? Yes, except that at least with the Chinese social credit system you presumably know what your score is and what rules you are supposed to follow. I expect that Airbnb, Facebook, Google et al will find it highly profitable to maintain and monetise lists of how credit-worthy / reliable / conscientious / conformist people are. Their neural nets' verdict on you will be both opaque and unchallengable. > We’re becoming increasingly dependent on a handful of major tech giants to get through our basic daily routine. Imagine waking up one day and no longer being able to check your Gmail, buy things on Amazon, or book an Uber. Quite. Do anything the new corporate oligarchies don't like, and you're an unperson.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选