Your example is one of the few edge cases where AirBnB works. The OP is talking about an everyday situation where AirBnB has instead had a detrimental effect on residents as well as would-be residents.
This is the type of NIMBYism that is contributing to the housing policy problems. Instead of using nuance and recognizing the good and bad, only the bad is focused on and the proposals are to throw it all out.
Generally NIMBYism involves push-back on policies that increase housing density to help more (and generally poorer) people live somewhere. AirBNB without regulation (and enforcement) doesn't help more people live in an area - in fact it removes long term residences from the market in favor of generating more revenue for existing property owners. Reducing the long term housing supply increases demand and prices, thus keeping poorer folks out.
Personally I don't mind AirBNB if it's only people renting out rooms in their residences. For instance here in Portland the law requires this. But it's poorly enforced.
NIMBYism isn't only about housing, it refers to any pushback on a change that is generally agreed as good/useful/necessary on the basis that "sure we need this thing, but not where I live".
Currently we hear it a lot regarding housing density, but it's also a factor in locating sewage treatment plants, nuclear waste disposal sites, etc.
In pretty much any small city in developing nations, AirBNB is the only viable option. Many of these cities have experienced rapid growth thanks to EU and Chinese loans, but the hotel infrastructure has not kept up. In one Balkan city I visit frequently, I can pay $150/night in a 40 year old Holiday Inn that was condemned a few years ago for structural reasons (then the decision was reversed), or I can pay $15 a night in an AirBNB some poor schlub making $200/month is renting out to make ends meet.
I'm going to choose door number 2 every time. Any time I am given the choice to buy something, especially a higher-quality experience at a lower price, from a human being versus a corporation, the human gets my money.
Just like I prefer Uber to taxis, I prefer AirBNB to hotels. Even Hostels now, if I go into Amsterdam I will pay $35-$50 per night. If there are two of us, the $50 per night AirBNB is our choice.
These businesses flourish because the social contract is broken. Creating artificial scarcity will harm the community in the long run, preventing tourism and limiting the ability of home owners / tenants to make a couple of extra bucks on under-utilized resources.
Whatever this social contract is, I've never signed it, and I don't really recognize anybody else telling me I must abide by this contract upon which I was given no opportunity to vote or discuss.
Your example is one of the few edge cases where AirBnB works. The OP is talking about an everyday situation where AirBnB has instead had a detrimental effect on residents as well as would-be residents.