Reactions and ambiguities
Although what is published by Airbnb suggests that the changes in its regulations will be well received by the majority of users, the ban on parties has generated controversy among the bulk of users. Some visitors and hosts have been outspoken against the new rule. Their main argument is that, although the platform is the meeting point, it should not have any jurisdiction over private homes and they allege that the celebrations should be allowed as long as they do not affect other parties. Basically like anyone who throws a party at their house. Instead of the implemented decisions, harsher sanctions are suggested when encounters result in complaints or disturbances of public order.
The alleged beneficiaries are not entirely satisfied either, since the statement includes what some consider to be a complacent trap. And it is that while Airbnb prohibits parties, it lifts the veto on occupations of 16 people or more. Although the aforementioned statement explains that the decision is due to the fact that its summer listing has “several types of larger homes that, by definition, are capable of comfortably and safely housing more than 16 people”, there are those who allege that allowing this number of guests is a veiled authorization to the party.
The problem is that the definitions are so ambiguous that it is not clear what can and cannot be done. Is celebrating a birthday or an anniversary with the closest family a party? Or play music a little louder than normal? Use a karaoke with a small group of friends? No one knows for sure and until the company defines its new policies well, everything will be uncertain.
While all this is defined, direct competition is torn between following the example of the dominant platform or being slightly less restrictive for the benefit of those who are able to celebrate without inconveniencing anyone. The only certainty for now is that our ways of traveling and meeting continue to change forever.