Airbnb Recently Proved We’re Already Flirting With A Social Credit System In The West

The ban came just before Valentine’s Day, no less, and spoiled their plans. Lauren Southern is no stranger to being banned from platforms or even countries for her political involvement, but now companies are taking it a step further and going after her family simply for their relation to her.

How the Banning Began

Lauren Southern was initially banned from Airbnb in 2019 for her involvement with right-wing groups. She has stirred up a lot of controversy over the years for various political activism, commentary, and association with various political groups. These activities have led her to be detained, banned from countries, kicked off platforms, and prevented from collecting funds on Patreon. Some of her controversial efforts include protesting Amber Rose’s Slut Walks, sporting an “It’s Okay to Be White” shirt in Australia, distributing flyers that read “Allah Is a Gay God” and “Allah Is Trans” in the UK, and in 2017, briefly blocking a migrant rescue ship in the Mediterranean with Generation Identity to protest the illegal smuggling of migrants into European countries. 

The latter occurrence has caused frequent misunderstandings of the extent of the protest, with many online accusing her of shooting flare guns at refugees or attempting to drown refugees, none of which are true. She was, however, detained for the stunt, which was a protest against the smuggling of illegal immigrants in small boats that often resulted in migrants drowning in the Mediterranean. Southern and her colleagues at Generation Identity did not believe these rescue ships should be bringing them to Europe, but rather back to their own countries.  

This year, Airbnb took another stand against Southern when her parents were banned from using the homestay rental service after they attempted to book a romantic holiday for Valentine’s Day. First, the couple received a notification that their booking had been canceled. Then, they received a message from Airbnb informing them that they had been "removed from the Airbnb platform because [their] account is closely associated with a person who isn't allowed to use Airbnb." The message also said they would no longer be able to book future reservations on Airbnb. The bottom of the message provided information on how to appeal the decision. 

Pre-emptively banning family members of those guilty of “wrong-think” is a step further in intimidation.

An important thing to note: Southern says her parents never appealed the decision. However, after Southern took to Twitter to complain to her 500,000 followers about the punishment of her parents for their relation to the political activist, Airbnb had a change of tune. After facing backlash on Twitter and a potential PR nightmare, Airbnb sent a follow-up message to Southern’s parents that read, "We reviewed your appeal and made the decision to restore your account. We're sorry for the inconvenience this caused, and we appreciate your willingness to work through this together." They added, "You can log back in anytime to book reservations as usual." The only problem is, they couldn’t possibly have reviewed an appeal that was never submitted. Airbnb also reportedly told The Daily Wire that they had “made a mistake” in banning Southern’s parents.

The Hypocrisy of Airbnb

Airbnb’s targeting of Southern’s parents was not a mistake. Southern’s parents are not connected to their daughter’s political activism in any way. Southern has repeatedly insisted that her parents are not politically active and don’t represent her in any way, nor have they ever booked anything for her. Yet, Airbnb thought it appropriate to ban them for the damning connection of bloodlines – where have we heard that before? 

When a producer from the Tucker Carlson show reached out to Airbnb to find out more about why Southern and her parents had been banned from the platform, global head of policy and communications Ben Breit responded that Southern was removed in 2019 per their policies that prohibit people affiliated with hate groups to use the service and that the removal remains in effect. When pressed about which particular hate groups Southern was guilty of affiliating with, Breit responded snarkily: “Respectfully, this is all easily Google-able. She is a public figure as you know.” When pressed again to clarify why they can’t name Southern’s specific offenses, Breit repasted his previous explanation and added, “You are now asking what groups. I’m telling you that literally googling her name brings all this up. If you’d like me to do that job for you and send links, let me know. But I think you are smart and capable of using the internet.”

Of course, it doesn’t seem true that Airbnb made a simple mistake. Southern and many of her supporters believe that Airbnb wanted to punish Southern, so they looked through her background, found that her parents use the service, and decided to punish her by revoking their access to the platform. While there isn’t any evidence of the service doing this, things aren’t adding up. How did they determine the connection between Southern and her parents? Why did they insist that they reviewed her parent's decision when her parents never launched an appeal, and only after the PR nightmare that was brewing on Twitter? Political commentator Sean Fitzgerald made an excellent observation. You could be punished for wrong-think by Airbnb simply for your familial relation to people with the “wrong” opinions, but not necessarily if you were an actual murderer. If you look into Airbnb’s policies, they do have guidelines regarding people with criminal history, such as sexual violence and exploitation, human trafficking, hate crimes, and terrorism, but they don’t seem to prohibit convicted felons from using their services. Even the listed violations can be appealed based on meeting certain conditions like employment and rehabilitation. 

Punishing Wrong-Think, North Korea Style

In North Korea, a famous and controversial policy of the authoritarian regime is to punish not only North Korean citizens who commit crimes, but also condemning several generations of their family to forced labor camps. It’s a law called Three Generations of Punishment, and it’s as it sounds. For anyone who commits a crime, you aren’t the sole person held responsible. Instead, it’s you, your children, and your grandchildren who will suffer for having “guilty blood.” Part of what makes this law so reprehensible is the brutal nature of punishment in North Korea: lifetime imprisonment or forced labor camps. However, the guilty-by-association principle in North Korea is precisely the same principle being implemented by Airbnb. I’m not saying Airbnb wants several generations of people to be imprisoned or sentenced to forced labor for the rest of their life, but their line of thinking is exactly what authoritarian regimes use to justify this sort of extreme brutality and injustice.

Today, it’s Airbnb, but tomorrow, it could be your bank. Keep in mind, we’re talking about de-platforming and de-personing people who have committed no crimes, not even the sort of "wrong-think." They simply bear the same bloodline as the “objectionable” person. Many controversial content creators or even just normal everyday people who have said things deemed offensive online have experienced banning from a myriad of services – Airbnb, Uber, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, Patreon, and so on. However, the addition of preemptively banning family members of those guilty of wrong-think is a step further in intimidation. It says “Behave, or your loved ones will suffer.” 

We’re letting massive corporations dictate who can participate in public life. 

China Isn’t the Only One With a Social Credit System

If this all sounds horrifying to you, it should. If it sounds familiar, it is. This behavior is indicative of a socially enforced credit system. It’s not yet a government policy like in China, but it's uncomfortably close. In an attempt to enhance trust in society, China has implemented a social credit rating system, where individuals are given a credit score based on how trustworthy they are in everyday interactions with others. People are monitored by their peers to ensure they respond appropriately, help when they should, say what they should, and behave pleasantly. It’s not yet a universal system, but they’re trying to make it mandatory for each Chinese citizen. Obviously, such a system is ripe for exploitation and abuse. People who don’t like you can punish you in a way that directly impacts your quality of life. 

Have a bad social credit score? You can be subject to audits and government inspections and potentially lose many rights and privileges. You will have fewer employment opportunities, face bans on travel, be restricted from private schools and high-prestige work, as well as have slower internet connection and suffer public shaming. If your score drops to zero, you’re blacklisted, and your photo is posted in public spaces to shame and humiliate you for being an untrustworthy person. If you have a high enough credit score, you can be considered a “model citizen,” the likes of which are met with rewards like discounts on public transportion. 

Many people’s social credit score has tanked due to arrest, acquiring debt, or being sued, relegating them as low-trust individuals. Journalist Liu Hu tried to uncover government corruption by the CCP and was sued for defamation, wrecking his social credit score and landing him to the blacklist. Hu is now on a list of Dishonest Persons Subject to Enforcement by the Supreme People's Court. This makes him "not qualified" to buy a plane ticket, and he is banned from traveling on some train lines, buying property, or taking out a loan.

All of this is done through digital surveillance. It may be on a smaller and less severe scale, but we’re already flirting with this system in the West. We’re letting massive corporations dictate who can participate in public life. While appearing on the Tucker Carlson show, Southern said, "I think progressives have realized with the laws we have in place defending civil liberties, they can't quite bring a social credit system in yet, so they found a way to circumvent it through the corporate class. They can just impose a social credit system on us through Big Tech."

Closing Thoughts

Even though Airbnb eventually reversed the decision, was it because they were sorry, because they made a mistake, or because they got caught? Southern has a huge platform (as long as the tech overlords allow her to) and hundreds of thousands of followers. Her reach enables her to stir up a storm with Airbnb’s mentions from angry people who will boycott its services. If she didn’t have that huge reach, however, would the decision have been reversed? Southern brings up a good point: How many degrees of association do we need to worry about before being held liable for others’ sins? It sets a dangerous precedent. And worst of all, Airbnb, for one, seemed to think it would get away with it.

Don’t miss anything! Sign up for our weekly newsletter and get curated content weekly!