The theme of the original blog post upon which this article is based is that "Silicon Valley criminals should be held to account for their actions" just as those who are the focus of Occupy Wall Street's protestations should be. This is, in essence, a political argument supported by the blog author's view that an elite few control and dominate society and are able to abuse its laws in order to promote their economic gain.<p>A few thoughts on this:<p>1. The subject matter here concerns the idea that laws are selectively enforced to favor a few elites and, whether one agrees with this or not, this is really political subject matter that is not proper for HN.<p>2. The "crime" allegedly being committed by Airbnb today rests solely on the blog author's assertions that: (a) Airbnb and many other prominent tech startups are handling money in ways that violate California's money transmittal statutes and (b) that fact in turn violates federal laws that make it a crime to commit such violations. While it is conceivable that the laws mentioned <i>might</i> some day be interpreted in this way, it is a huge stretch - indeed, even a frivolous assertion - to say that Airbnb is committing "crimes" simply by operating its business in accordance with its prescribed business model. As matters now stand, however, this is only a layman's conclusion about a complex body of laws - and one that is not supported by the actions or interpretations of those charged with enforcing such laws. In this context, there is no basis for calling anybody here "Silicon Valley criminals" unless it is in a generalized political sense (e.g., the robber barons were "looters and criminals") - that is, through use of the word "criminals" in a hyperbolic, non-specific manner. This is really another way of saying that the subject matter of the post was as much political as anything else.<p>3. It is irresponsible for VentureBeat to take this underlying material and concoct a headline stating that "allegations of past and present Internet crime haunt Airbnb co-founder." The clear implication of this headline is that there are serious allegations of criminal misconduct currently affecting this particular individual and that is objectively false. No crimes of any kind have been charged. No activity is being engaged in by this individual that has even remotely raised concerns by the public authorities of criminal activity. The relevant activities are said to be "criminal" based solely on a lay interpretation of laws that is not supported by the relevant regulators, by existing case law, or by any criminal enforcement actions of prosecutors. The picture painted by the headline, then, is plainly misleading if not false.<p>4. The factual background as recited by the blog author may be true or not. Only the persons involved really know. Taken as a whole, the facts themselves are here dwarfed by the problematic legal conclusions set forth as fact by this piece. I would therefore call it a "hit piece" or unfair attack as presented by VentureBeat. The blog author made an essentially political argument in his piece; this follow-on piece, though, attempts to recast that argument as legal fact about alleged crimes and this goes way over the line in my judgment.<p>Anybody who thinks I am being unfair in so describing the VentureBeat piece need only imagine like allegations being made about you simply because you ran a successful Silicon Valley venture that handled money in some manner, whether as payments or deposits or otherwise. If you don't mind being called a "criminal" when there is no hint that you are doing anything at all to violate current laws, then more power to you. For the rest of us, I think "unfair" is a very understated way of describing it.