Arrington's editorializing has been fairly tame in this story. A lot of the mess has been due to EJ's posts and Airbnb's attempts at damage control.

If you look through the original post, there are only a couple of lines where Arrington says Airbnb isn't financially responsible and that is, imho, a fair interpretation of what the spokesperson/Lukezic told him. TC has also done a fair job of publishing Airbnb's side of the story - guest posts, updating their posts, etc.

Airbnb's real problem here is EJ, not Arrington. Airbnb's image isn't getting tarnished by posts on TC, it is getting tarnished by EJ's blog posts which make Airbnb's people seem cold and insensitive.

If you look at PG's comments on the earlier thread, he seemed to imply that Airbnb disagreed with EJ's version of events (they called her before her second post, etc). That could be Airbnb's big problem - it seems to me they want to say EJ is lying but can't in public.

Paul, if you actually read the statements made by the CEO on news.ycombinator.com, it's very clear that AirBnb are the primary, if not only, ones at fault here.

I don't want to call Paul a liar, since it seems likely to me that he has just made a mistake of believing someone else. But he's putting his own reputation behind AirBnb, and AirBnb is lying. That's unwise.

Let me compare a different response that I'm familiar with. A friend of mine had her apartment destroyed in the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. Insurance companies came and set up booths in Manhattan and were cutting checks left and right, without even SEEING the damage. My friend had a check in her hand on 9/13 if I recall correctly. She didn't get in to SEE her own apartment until a month later, and the insurance company didn't see it until much later than that.

As of today and yesterday, there are articles in newspapers across the land. There are phrases like "As of Friday afternoon, Airbnb had not returned calls from The [Washington] Post requesting comment." - that's a quote from a WashPost story, of course. One thing I know: when the Washington Post calls and a company has something good to say about themselves, they take the call (calls, actually).

It's apparent from the latest newspaper stories that AirBnb is now reacting in a cover-it-up fashion - they're trying to offer the woman a sum of money with the condition that she shut up. That's fine, I guess - very corporate of them.

But frankly I expected better. I guess I sort of expected that even if AirBnb was being dumb, that when the first article hit news.yc, that someone would call them and straighten them out. Instead it seems that PG, also, is blinded by "going to be as big as Ebay".

For that matter, I think you've got some nerve tracking her down, handing her contact details over to an Airbnb investor and claiming to be helping her to find an objective independent mediator.

this isn't true. there was a guy in the Techcrunch comments who said that the same thing happen to him. he also makes reference to two other incidents in another comment. the comment is here:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/30/how-the-hell-is-this-my-fau...

reproducing the top part of the comment:

Something very similar happened to me about 2 months ago.

In addition to valuables stolen, the thieves/addicts did thousands of dollars of bizarre damage to my rented home and left it littered with meth pipes. They were identity thieves, too and all my personal information was strewn about. Further investigation of my own led me to evidence that the people were not just thieves but were also dangerous. I too, feared for my own safety and would not stay at my house for some time.

I had a similar problem with haphazard communication from people at AirBnB. I gave them multiple opportunities to make me a happy customer to which they did but then retracted their offer after their was miscommunication among the team. Sometimes days went by without hearing from anyone, while I was fear-stricken, totally disoriented, and angry. It was almost the most absurd customer service crisis one could ever imagine. But I am one squeaky wheel, and we eventually found an agreeable solution that I was generally pleased with.

I have since both rented my place out and stayed in others' homes from airbnb

This is the creepiest thing I've ever heard. She's had her personal space and privacy violated in a terrible way, and you're passing around her contact details? Did you ask her permission?

It seems that every time a story breaks about a successful company, a bunch of envious and disgruntled people come out of the woodwork and jump onto the bandwagon headed straight for the founders' heads. A community of seemingly intelligent and rational individuals turns into the most rabid, emotionally-charged group of catty girls I've ever seen. We only have one side of the story here. What if the've offered help and she's rejecting it? What if there are some very legitimate reasons that AirBnB is not going totally public about it? You don't know, and you have not heard the other side of the story.

The same thing happened with Dropbox. You guys were so ridiculously quick to foam at the mouth with your theatrics and conspiracies.

It's pretty revolting. Envy is just not a good color on many of you.

Edit: Spelling. Thanks, Jacques.

Based on the data so far, many people would agree that EJ seem spooked by he fast moving world of innovative startups, social networking, and venture capitalism. Based on the fact that she has been saying how terrified she's been to release even the basic info about the situation yet didn't have the foresight to remove past entries from her blog, I'd say it is also safe to say that she is naive about the state of privacy in the online world.

So you take it upon yourself to not only track her down, but give her personal details to someone with a financial stake in what has been described as a billion dollar hyperstartup.

Think about that, from her perspective and from the perspective of her sympathizers.

We saw yesterday how she interpreted what may have been the sincerest of emails by a cofounder to get coffee as a calculated uncaring attempt to quiet her.

And now she receives correspondence from someone with no apparent connection to airbnb who, btw, sent her info to a well known backer of a billion dollar company.

What the hell do you think she'll do? Spend an hour siting on whatever couch she has managed to find for temp residence and read yours and pg's HN profiles and threads and see that you and pg are indeed standup guys??

Look at her past behavior She has already insinuated that airbnb has tried to overtly intimidate her, a tactic, that until yesterday, very few of HN readers would have thought possible of the savvy founders of airbnb.

And now you have faith that this reluctant participant in the ycombinator world will give you the full benefit of the doubt and take the time to learn from secon hand sources that you're not some creep?

When journalists new to this whole debacle come across this thread, how much benefit of the doubt do you think you'll receive?

Do you think that there's a way to fit in "Some hackernews user tracks down fearful airbnb victim and gives her contact info to airbnb backer" AND "airbnb backer had proven track recor of bring unbiased and kindly" into 140 characters.

People thought EJ was naive. I think you've set a new bar.

The crux of your (and their) problem is this: Why, if, as you say, airbnb was being as helpful as possible from the get-go, did the victim write that second post?

That's it. You cannot have a claim to credibility until you answer that question. Even if that answer is, "she was paid off", the existence of her second blog post puts the lie to airbnb's (and your) claims. Either she's telling the truth, or they (and you) are. They are mutually exclusive stories.

Bringing Arrington's Arringtonity into this is a red herring. The story isn't about him. There are two involved parties, here, and you've aligned yourself with airbnb. The victim's story isn't being run through the TC filter; it's there for everyone to see. So far, the collective 'you' have not addressed it, refuted her points, or shown how the two accounts are compatible.

It's easy to hop on the "Michael Arrington is a sensationalistic dick" bandwagon, because he is. That doesn't address the issue, though, and it comes across as a deflection.

Visual proof has already been obtained by the police. Why does the victim have to provide photos to the general public?

For that matter, why does she have to "dump her email cache"?

Are we putting her on trial on HN?