How Platform Exchange and Safeguards Matter: The Case of Sexual Risk in Airbnb and Couchsurfing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work in CHI and CSCW has devoted increasing attention to how the design of network hospitality platforms shapes user experiences and relational outcomes. In this article, I interrogate how different risk factors emerge based on the type of exchanges these platforms facilitate. To do so, I juxtapose two prominent network hospitality platforms-one facilitating negotiated exchange (i.e., Airbnb) with another facilitating reciprocal exchange (i.e., Couchsurfing). Homing in on sexual risk, an underexplored form of platform danger, and drawing on interviews with 40 female dual-platform users, I argue that Airbnb's provision of binding negotiated exchange and institutional safeguards reduces risk through three mechanisms: casting initial guest-host relation into a buyer-seller arrangement, stabilizing interactional scripts, and formalizing sexual violence recourse. Conversely, Couchsurfing's focus on reciprocal exchange and lack of safeguards increase sexual precarity for users both on- and off-platform. This study demonstrates how platforms with strong prosocial motivations can jeopardize sociality and concludes with design implications for protecting vulnerable user populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".