I recently went travelling and used it. An old woman opened the door to the apartment building for me when the lock was giving me trouble, then was then confused then concerned that she didn't recognize me.

I used it once before, in Barcelona, staying in the flat of a wonderful couple who we got along well with and it was like visiting relatives.

This time, it felt like we were saving a buck, and the owner making a buck, by scaring old ladies. I guess it's back to hotels and hostels.

I too have had some mixed experiences. A B&B in Rome, where the host had elegantly decorated our room, provided fresh flowers each day all whilst respecting our privacy.

Contrasted with a flat in residential block where one of the neighbours started shouting loudly at my girlfriend, I do not speak French (she is fluent) and didn't have any idea if things where about to get violent.

It turns out the previous guests had been making lots of noise late at night, being tourists we where of course staying up much later than we would normally. It's embarrassing having someone complain about your sex noises.

Another time we simply couldn't find or contact the host. Airbnb did not help in this matter at all. Contrasted to a friends experience on NYE when a booking.com room turned out to not be available, he ended up in the Shangri La hotel. It's clear AirBnB doesn't help you when things go wrong. As such I'd never use them for an important visit, or a visit during an event.

I think the analogy breaks down when you consider what sharing economy companies do is explicitly illegal, especially in the places they operate. Granted, there's been differing levels of enforcement from various agencies, but Hillary has been mentioning addressing it from the federal level. Point being, there are probably changes/regulations coming to the current free for all that is the sharing economy.

What's the difference between AirBNB and being good enough friends with people to stay at their place for a night or two - or even a week? The exchange of money? I occasionally give my own family money if I inconvenience them for several days.

It is illegal for me to pull to the side of a free-way and pick up a stranger who's car broke down/ran out of gas to give them a ride to the nearest gas station/place they were trying to get to.

I find it absolutely absurd that it is illegal to help someone. Moreso on the merits of "helping strangers is bad, but it's legal if they are friends or family".

I have a very loose definition of "friend". So where do I draw the line between legal ridesharing (giving a friend a ride to the airport for $20) and illegal ridesharing (giving a stranger a ride to the airport for $20)?

Legitimate curiosity - so if someone would like to clarify why one is OK but the other is bad, I'd love to hear it.

You must have a very loose definition of help, too, if you consider renting your property for profit as act of help as opposed to a self serving act with the aim being lining ones pockets.

My definition agrees with the dictionary definition, which I don't consider very loose. You can still help someone without being altruistic.

Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, so I recognize I tread a fine line here, unlike the aforementioned, I do not see a reason to differentiate between the following two actions:

a) I let someone stay the night in my house and they offered me $60 as a thank you in return for the hospitality, I initially decline but they continue to insist so I take the $60.

b) I charged for someone to stay the night in my house and they agreed to pay $60 to stay at my house instead of an alternative place (and/or sleeping in their car/on the street)

I guess as a couchsurfer I have a different moral perspective about the act of sleeping in someone's house, offering money, accepting money, and bargaining.

E:

A reply to this comment was deleted, comparing that A helps all people and B helps people "willing to pay". My response to that is below:

You're still helping someone in either scenario. The pool of people you are willing or able to help is smaller in B than A, but you are still helping someone. Again - helping someone else does not need to be a selfless, altruistic act.

"Instead of spending $80 at a hotel, you can spend $60 at my place and you can join me for dinner."

By saving you $20, I have helped you. You saved $60 and had a place to sleep. Your alternatives were:

  1. Sleep in car for free
  2. Find someone willing to help you for cheaper and/or free
  3. Sleep at a more expensive place 

By giving you a superior option to 1 and 3 and you failing to find 2, I am still helping you. Would I be more altruistic if I let you stay for free? Sure. But to say I'm not helping you when I'm saving you $20 is stretching the definition of "help" to include altruistic behavior.