You highlight the positive sides, and the fact that change is inevitable, and you are right in a way. But there are aspects of this - those that make this a Humane Tech topic - that are really negative and should be avoided and actively fought against.
Airbnb came to market with the message “We will democratize the hospitality sector in a way to allow anyone to offer the same services a hotel and similar establishments do, creating a market for both the supply-side (I rent my space to others) as well as consumers (I have cheap places to stay), by offering a technology platform to make that really easy.”.
Initially this was all nice and well. There was a great culture around it, and you got to know the locals in the places you visited, etc. (this is still true in small towns/countryside). But now that the market has professionalized, there are real problems arising from this, and Airbnb doesn’t really care that much about it (unless it threatens their bottom line). They are just the technology provider, right?
I don’t know about Paris, but Amsterdam was/is a very livable city. But Airbnb is actually diminishing that livability! Amsterdam is full of students and expats (working there) that can no longer find affordable space in the center, nor can they find them in the suburbs (because those have the more luxurious homes). So they necessarily live far from the center or accept crappy living spaces at high expense.
Amsterdam consists really of a number of ‘villages’ that are grown together to a city, and even the Red Light District used to have a close-knit community of locals. That social fabric is now eroded because less and less houses become available for locals…
Landlords, when they renew their contracts, put huge price increases on their rent, just to drive renters out. This so they can offer their home for Airbnb, which is more profitable. After this conversion an ongoing stream of tourist visit these houses, who do not care about the neighborhood, are rowdy and loud, use drugs or are drunk. They make the neighborhood less attractive for locals. It becomes a vicious circle of decline.
The moral of the story is: Once again the promise of the tech companies to ‘improve the world, offer better ways’ has been found void, and (of course) it is all about the money.
I agree on the global trend, that this will be the case, and I won’t go into the pros and cons of globalization here (off topic in terms of monopolisation trends), but in Amsterdam and other cities around the world the municipalities are scratching their heads on whether Airbnb (and similar companies, such as Uber) are as good as they thought they would be. Sure, for Amsterdam the tourists bring a lot of income to the city. But the center has become unlivable. They don’t want to become the next Florence, Italy that by tourists is seen as some kind of theme park (in Amsterdam even, American or Japanese tourists sometimes ask where the exit is).
Local governments are increasingly prepared to regulate and restrict the activities of Airbnb, Uber, etc. helped by public opinion of their citizens. But it is a fight against giants.
(Okay, Alex, you know my take on globalization, so you’ve drawn me out to add 
: IMHO globalization is a ‘business requirement’ of modern capitalism, to make it thrive, but for the power brokers in this game the positive effects of globalization are just unintended and mostly negative side-effects (higher wages → higher production cost → incentive to move production away, or lower standards in other ways). My belief is that we have failed economic systems - but just don’t realize this fully still - that lead to a zero-sum game, a race to the bottom, if left unchecked. The system would work if we had unlimited resources, and infinite growth was indeed possible. I see these failed system as a root cause for most our problems (and also the reason why it is worthwhile to often forego humane technology, for that matter))