[MerManMaid]

Perhaps its just me, but I feel like a lot of users are missing the forest for the trees here. Services such as these only pop up when legitimate solutions prove ineffective at addressing the problem.

To me, these services are more indicative of "Big Tech" failing to create effective appeal processes to meet their consumer's demand... While I'm sure there isn't a lot of money in it, it'd be great for Big Tech to examine how they could improve on this front.

[vineyardmike]

It’s just you. The ineffectiveness is the point. This service is a joke, it’s surely illegal. Everyone knows it’s a “failing” system, you can’t scale free customer service forever.

The legitimacy of the need for this service proves the value of these accounts. I predict that tech companies will get in on it, and within a few years will offer paid customer service the way enterprises get today. You can already pay for “verified” accounts, so this is the next step. If companies don’t monetize it, government will regulate it.

[gertop]

> I predict that tech companies will get in on it, and within a few years will offer paid customer service the way enterprises get today.

Good! That would be a fantastic outcome if that's all plsfix accomplishes. Tons of people would be willing to pay for support but it's just not offered.

[MerManMaid]

>It’s just you. The ineffectiveness is the point. This service is a joke, it’s surely illegal. Everyone knows it’s a “failing” system, you can’t scale free customer service forever.

Is the spirit of this service corrupt? Absolutely. Does it undercut Big Tech's checks and balances? %100. Is it morally lacking? Personally I think so. Is it illegal though... ehhhh? It might be shocking but not every term found on a FAANG's term and services agreement is legally binding.

Services like these are inevitable so long as humans are corrupt but typically only pop into public consensus when the institution has failed so spectacularly that the average consumer has completely lost faith in them to adequately address their problem. While I'm not condoning corruption, clearly the Big Tech companies have failed in providing adequate solutions to this problem and I feel our time is better spent examining the negligence of these institutions which caused the problem rather than the malicious service looking to exploit said negligence.

[ec109685]

Customer service is a profit center sometimes. Person calls in, and sell them antivirus and pc cleaner subscription.

[denkmoon]

I'm not sure the 'You deleted my YouTube account because I got 3 false copyright claims in 1 hour' to 'I've installed Google(TM) YouTube(R) Antivirus Subscription' pipeline is a strong one.

[ranger207]

Before this existed, it's likely that most internal requests are from employees genuinely trying to help people. Sure, it's possible there's some employees already taking money to submit internal forms rather than personally evaluating the applicant's morals, but it's unlikely that it's very widespread. Formalizing the process like this website does makes it much more likely that most submissions to internal forms for unbanning people will be in exchange for money with no moral consideration, due to 1) making a marketplace to match applicants and suitably unscrupulous employees; 2) reducing friction for actually executing the transaction; and 3) by being explicitly money-oriented attracting employees who are very much not in it to help unfairly banned applicants. Those factors make this seem far more ethically repugnant than existing processes

[ranger207]

Self reply to start a new thread of conversation, the lack of consideration of these factors is incredibly stereotypical of "Valley techbros" and the mismatch in values between people who'd make this kind of site and people who'd find this kind of site awful is why many people outside of Silicon Valley aren't as enthused about tech companies as the tech companies themselves are

[immibis]

I'm okay with evil tech companies fighting with other evil tech companies in a way that might benefit end users.

[johnnyanmac]

>the mismatch in values between people who'd make this kind of site and people who'd find this kind of site awful

enemy of my enemy is a friend. If I cared enough to properly appeal a bad ban, I care less about the ethics of how I get unbanned and more about just getting unbanned.

You're already convinced the company that banned you is unfair and uncaring. Why would you care about exploiting the weaknesses?

[mrWiz]

I think the majority of HN is aware of Big Tech's failure to create effective appeal processes. It's not exactly a secret. This service is still naked corruption, though.

[MerManMaid]

Absolutely, I just think our time is better spent examining the source of the problem.

[johnnyanmac]

>Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

Don't see much dishonest. And honestly, it may fall under a bribe, but bribe implies the person in power was the one who affected you. Which clearly isn't the case here.

In my eyes, this is just making a public service of something we 100% know people who make tech companies profitable already have access to.

[mrWiz]

This is an unsanctioned, under-the-table payment to someone in power in exchange for special treatment. You're saying this /may/ fall under bribery?

[johnnyanmac]

It's only slightly lower in my eyes than an influencer getting sanctioned, private access to someone in power in exchange for continuing to kinda be an employee (but not actually). I mostly want to emphasize that the "official" ways to do this was already razor thin.

[ethbr1]

> This service is still naked corruption

This service feels capitalistically egalitarian!