It's easy to jump on a bandwagon in order to feel virtuous, but reality is generally more complex than the headlines generated by sensation-mongering journalists. Decades before AirBnB arrived, London was a city in which few could afford to live in the center, as were a great many other European cities (hello, Paris). And for every complaint made against AirBnB, an equal complaint can be lodged against hotels. As a frequent traveler (sometimes business, sometimes pleasure) I've stayed in my fair share of appalling yet expensive hotels.

I note also that it's easy to take a pseudo-moral stance when you don't in fact need the services of the organization you're criticizing. Most travelers aren't in a position to take advantage of volunteer-oriented accommodation, nor to travel full-time and thus have lots of time and options by means of which to arrange free places to stay.

AirBnB is certainly flawed, and it's true that companies have sprung up to dominate certain areas (try finding somewhere in Reno that isn't owned by the single company that seems to sit behind every single option in that city) but pretending that you're "supporting the local culture" by avoiding AirBnB is as fatuous as believing you're "saving the planet" by driving a Tesla. It's empty virtue-signaling that ignores real-world facts.