3 ms·
Clearly these should be banned because they violate Google's policy, so I don't argue that. But on a more general level, I don't really have a problem with com
by habosa 5y ago
Clearly these should be banned because they violate Google's policy, so I don't argue that.
But on a more general level, I don't really have a problem with companies offering to fill out government forms for me in exchange for my money.
For instance last year I fought a traffic ticket by myself. It's not hard, but you do have to fill out like 3 different forms and mail them in. Totally free besides the stamps.
There are many many "ticket fighting" companies which charge you $100 to get you out of a ticket. They act like they're lawyers but really they just fill these forms out for you. If I had to do it again, I'd pay the $100 for the convenience.
How do we decide who is a scam and who is improving the experience of interacting with the government? How much friction do you have to remove before it's OK to charge?
Clearly the mail forwarding ones are a scam (it's super easy through USPS) and, in my opinion, the ticket fighting ones are not a scam. So the line is somewhere in between those two poles.
- wccrawford 5y agoThe real ones don't make it look like you're on the official site. They clearly lay out what they're doing and why they charge what they charge. It's not a scam if the customer is properly informed of the situation.
- Macha 5y agoI think companies who are legitimately about making the process easier can avoid can make that clear in their naming and marketing - "Foobar traffic appeals service - We make fighting tickets easier, 80% success rate" is hard to mistake for the government, while "Traffic Appeals Service, file your traffic appeal here" is a lot harder to notice that you're using a third party