[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?