Airbnb | Respect Civil Liberties in Digital Services at Airbnb

Status
Filed
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
4
Resolution details
Company ticker
ABNB
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Digital rights
Filer type
Shareholder
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that the Board of Directors of Airbnb conduct an evaluation and issue a report within the next year, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information and disclosure of anything that would constitute an admission of pending litigation, evaluating how it oversees risks related to denying or restrict service to users or customers based on their religious or political status or views under “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and related policies, other terms of use or content management policies, or any other policies or practices, and how such discrimination impacts users, customers, and other individuals’ exercise of their constitutionally protected civil rights.
Supporting statement
Digital service providers (DSPs) control access to critical services and platforms that drive innovation in the American economy and facilitate expression and the open exchange of information across the globe. These companies have unprecedented power to censor speech. And they are under increasing pressure to remove unpopular religious and political views from the marketplace. Respecting fundamental freedoms, like free speech and religious liberty, drives healthy discourse and tolerance for diverse views. Airbnb can and should promote these freedoms to best serve its diverse users and promote a healthy market and marketplace of ideas. Economic growth also requires innovation, and that requires the freedom to challenge the status quo. If DSPs build their own social credit system, they are going to lock out Americans from some of the best tools for innovation and growth. But recent events and DSPs’ own policies suggest that users’ and customers’ freedom of expression and religion are at risk. In addition to concerning revelations of collusion with government at companies like Meta and Twitter to censor constitutionally protected speech,1 the 2024 edition of the Viewpoint Diversity Business Index2 found that every one of the largest DSPs, including Airbnb, have policies that permit them to deny or restrict service based on vague and subjective terms like “misinformation,” “hate speech,” “intolerance,” or “reputational risk.” Airbnb, for example, prohibits users who are “leaders of hate groups” or engage in speech that Airbnb considers “hateful.”3 And it has taken significant negative press for enforcing the policy against figures like Laura Southern4 and Michelle Malkin.5 These kinds of terms encourage tech companies—and activists and governments who may pressure them—to deny or restrict service for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons. They also let the companies avoid accountability by hiding censorship behind vague and shifting standards. When DSPs engage in this kind of discrimination, they expose themselves to heightened legal liability and hinder the ability of Americans to access the marketplace. This undermines the fundamental freedoms of our country and is an affront to the public trust. Airbnb also maintains a non-discrimination policy.6 The shareholders need to know that Airbnb is adhering to its own standards by serving diverse customers without regard to their beliefs or other factors above. 1 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/09/08/biden-administration-coerced-facebook-court-rules/70800723007/ 2 https://viewpointdiversitycore.org/business-index 3 https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/company/airbnb 4 https://www.foxnews.com/media/airbnb-admits-mistake-banning-controversial-youtubers-parents-using-service 5 https://prescottenews.com/2022/02/06/opinion-why-airbnb-banned-me-and-my-hubby-too-michelle-malkin/ 6 https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2867

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.