I disagree. Of course this is all speculation but I see in EJ someone who's genuinely hurt, and genuinely private, and is not focused on financial remedies.

Her main complaint seems to be lack of genuine concern, not lack of financial help. Nothing about her attitude, her living situation, or blog (documenting extensive past globetrotting adventures) suggests she's hurting for money.

She's just hurting from having her home, sense of security, and sentimental possessions ransacked.

My feeling is that if she is generally vulnerable, and genuinely private, it doesn't make a lot of sense to rent out your apartment with your belongings inside it and then leave for days. I could never rent out to AirBnB, because I'm also fairly private and I don't like thinking of people being in a position to touch my things.

I'm not saying that she invited what happened, but that the risks were very clear, and only she could decide how to weight those risks. If she's the private person she's painting herself as being, I really don't understand why she used AirBnB in the first place.

I don't think she's a liar, and what happened to her was terrible, but I can't help but feel that this has gone over some threshold of "I want to get this sorted out between two amicable parties who are seeking a resolution" to using the positive press for her to see how much can be extracted from AirBnB.

> If she's the person she's the private person she's painting herself as being, I really don't understand why she used AirBnB in the first place.

I wonder if the vandal had any feedback on airbnb.

I've used airbnb once as a guest and, being a private person myself, I went out of my way to find a host with some reputation and good feedback. I even forewent some better deals because they were by new hosts that had no feedback to show.

Now, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong--after all we all have to start somewhere and, as a first-time airbnb guest, I didn't have any reputation points myself--but I reckon people who have so much at stake should screen their guests very carefully.

The personal effects (which she seemed the most upset about losing) were locked away in a closet, which the thieves/renters smashed a hole in to get to.

But it's extremely hard for anyone so far to evaluate how much genuine concern Airbnb has expressed, or failed to express, especially with the press repeatedly focusing on airbnb's attempts to "censor" her.

I find it hard to believe Airbnb wouldn't have expressed genuine concern. However their request for her to take down her blog or alter it due to their funding round was probably in bad taste.

I think the missteps by Airbnb are overblown mostly by an emotionally distressed woman.

Respectfully, no. The missteps by Airbnb are almost certainly mostly overblown by the Internet message board pundits who have managed to form strong opinions about the events second-, third-, and none'th- hand about it.

Telling sign: people are forming factions and polarizing the issue. Either "EJ" is legitimately frustrated by a clumsy response by Airbnb, or she's acting out because of emotional distress; one set of fact patterns belongs to the "pro-Airbnb" side, and the other to the "pro-EJ" side.

Also telling: let's all make sure we get photos of the damage! Because how will we know how to judge what happened unless we can see it for ourselves? Because better forming opinions about other people's misfortunes is our right as Internet message board citizens.

This might have to do with thinking styles instead of malice - and it's a very common way to misunderstand people not working in the tech or science industry.

If you have some free time, go read the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus", which talks about the difference. It isn't always gender - the book is simply giving you familiar examples. But there does exist a sizable number of people who tend to think from feelings first, instead of fact and logic first. Always attributing this kind of writing or speech as malice would produce tons of misunderstandings between you and a lot of people.

I noticed a gender dynamic in the crossed communication here as well (and also in HN's mass response to it, but that's another story). But speaking generally, this kind of thing cuts both ways. A lot of the time "people not working in the tech or science industry" (if that's the euphemism we're using) perceive genuinely well-intentioned remarks as malicious too (e.g. cold, calculating, robotic). Why? Because very little is coming through their primary channel. Each party is relying on a different primary channel and feels like they're not being heard.

She has made two blog posts. The media has picked up the story, and they're contacting her. I don't think that counts as "blabbing ... in every possible media outlet."

As for the made-up PR person, I think it's ridiculous to do what-ifs like that when you have no evidence.

Finally, it's clear to me from her comments that she is suffering from PTSD. She's communicating her experience with that. I see no reason to assume guile.

I don't think you understood that essay. That essay is about when things that are not stories make it into many news outlets - things such as suits. There is no story, people are not talking about them, so PR firms conjure up an angle and sell that angle to the media.

This is a story. People are talking about it.

That's very cynical -- can't she just be articulate and feeling violated?

She certain can, but she also bears some responsibility for using the service. For instance, I wouldn't use it unless I had everything from my garlic press to my furniture and space insured to the hilt, and was sure my policy covered these tenants.

I think it's been discussed several times already. In many cases, you can't get rental insurance for services like airbnb.

Is it cynical when you see a pattern in the language she's using? She's not the first customer to complain about the outcome of a business transaction she engaged in, remember Paula Jones?, so the public at large is already well-educated in terms of what happens next.

I'm on record with my desire to see counsel retained on her behalf before passing judgement on what exactly she's angling for and I think the specialization of that particular legal counsel will spell it out for us.

To answer you, yes actually it is. Innocent until proven guilty, and all the language patterns in the world can't change that?

At this point, it did occur to me that she is angling for a much bigger settlement than just her furnishings. And if so, I imagine it's not a PR firm coaching her, but rather a lawyer.

I've done a lot of work with plaintiff's attorneys and one thing I've never seen is them encouraging people to publicly express their whoa. You don't want the other side to know what you are going to drop.

Their... woe?

ya, channeling Joey Lawrence. Thanks for the rapid grammar feedback.

I disagree with what you're saying about EJ having a PR person nudging her. But I agree with the rest of your sentiment because I got the same vibe reading her interview comments.

I'm wondering if Airbnb sensed this from their interactions with her just prior to the first blog post. It's possible the situation cannot be fixed, even with a blank check. Does she have a legal case? I don't know how she'd be able to sue Airbnb if that's what she decides to do because they have no legal obligation to compensate her. The person she needs to go after is Faith Clinton.