My interpretation has been that EJ isn't very focused on the financial aspect; that's been emphasized by other readers and rewrites, because other people see the world in those terms.

For EJ, it's about violation and no amount of money will fix it. So the same way that in her 2nd blog post, she brushes off the idea of donations from readers, she may have been noncommittal about any initial AirBnb offers of financial help. In fact, if AirBnb concentrated too much on what they could buy for her, and not enough on whether she was emotionally well, that could have worsened her mood.

I do think some of her recounting has been colored by the psychological need to find someone to blame for the initial crime. She initially felt betrayed by AirBnb because she felt there hadn't been enough warning to be wary of guests. (She thought there was more checking than there was. EJ was so confident that the key got handed off in some manner such that she didn't even know the gender of the guest!)

For a bit, EJ then felt reassured by sympathy from AirBnb support staff. But after she blog posted – an effort to warn others, and also an appeal for more sympathy and emotional support – AirBnb went into all-business mode. I'd guess they said something to the effect of, "is there anything we can do for you that would let you take down or balance your first post, because it's just the incomplete first part of a still-evolving story we want to have a happier resolution for you."

If your real needs are financial, you're OK hearing that. If your real needs are emotional, that question may sound sinister, pressuring, as if any help was conditional on removing the post – even if that wasn't the AirBnb intent.

Yeah.. but being disappointed with how EJ and AirBnB handled the situation aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I frankly don't care all that much how gracefully someone who's apartment gets ransacked handles things. It's not as material to me as the way a company that I might choose to do business with handles the situation.

It seems like AirBnB is now, because of this event, creating a framework to shield the company and their users from similar mishaps (details provided in the article). Which shows they are listening.

I think they should be judged on that framework, when it is finally in place, instead of this single incident.

You make a good point about judging them on how well they learn from this mistake. My concern is they may come up with a good framework, but then can't execute the solution well. In this case the solution means little. And this incident has cast doubt on their ability to execute.

Then again, it may only be one bad incident, and every small company has those.

What troubles me most is the claim they attempted to cover it up, so I'm not sure how many times an incident like this has happened.

They didn't attempt to "cover it up." That's just media spin. They attempted to resolve the matter silently, which, honestly, is a perfectly reasonable request.

But clearly the issue is beyond reconciliation as the woman is requesting something Airbnb can't fix (and technically didn't cause). Perhaps exposing the situation to the world might help her find the "problem" and thus the solution.

I can't help thinking that if my apartment had been trashed and I was receiving threatening/blackmail comments ("take your blog down or limit access") I might be more than a little upset...