Airbnb and Uber are two darlings of disruption, adored by one segment of the population (their users) and despised by the people they disrupt.

If something goes wrong—a party breaks out, somebody gets robbed, the cops show up, someone slips and falls—it’s not the tenant, or some sharing-economy guru in Silicon Valley, who’s going to be held responsible. It will be the owner’s problem. That’s why at the first hint of Airbnb usage, Podziba explains, “I tell them to do what I did: Get surveillance cameras. Hire a private investigator. And do the necessary steps to get them out.”

Disruption frequently involves a short cut, finding a way to avoid paying the price that comes with the territory. Since the disrupted businesses are all bound to following the rules, the disrupting force has a clear advantage. Sometimes this can be good news, as an inefficient business model is turned on its head, forced to reinvent itself to be more efficient. Good for consumers, good for the economy.

But sometimes disruption creates a false economy. A disruptive force uses a short cut to dramatically improve service or cut costs, a short cut that is not viable in the long term. But in the short term, the disruptive force races through an industry, wreaking all sorts of havoc.

What sort of disruptive force does Uber and Airbnb bring to the table? The jury is still out.