3 ms·

Allow people to pay say $50 in order to get someone to actually review all the facts about the case and refund the user the money if they were right.

by hmate9 4y ago

prox 4y ago
I feel this one should be enshrined in law.
Broken_Hippo 4y ago
So, no poor people get this. I mean, it is the cost of nearly 7 hours work if you only make minimum wage. It doesn't really matter if the money will be refunded - it can't be used on food while the company holds the money for weeks. Honestly, they should be required to simply have a case worker look at everything if the person has exhausted other options. Those other options should be easily found on the company's website (or facebook page, etc). And the case worker should actually have the power to decide either way, free from coercion and without quotas leaning either direction.
patates 4y ago
I like the idea, while thinking the next steps in case that goes wrong gives me a pause. What do you do if that person you get for 50$ seems incompetent? Exponentially increasing fees to get a review? Remembering again, perfection is the enemy of good, what we have here is more than good enough for most of the cases perhaps.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Here's a little sci-fi short fiction... In 2041, Google begins offering a service where you can pay $28 ($50 in USD2041) for a human to review your claim. Since it costs them $8 to do this, they will allow you to appeal their decision as many times as you want. In 2042, a data analyst discovers that routing claims to a specific subset of reviewers maximizes this revenue stream and updates the business logic accordingly.
- searchableguy 4y ago
  This is a business model for many hardware vendors who sell support and insurance with gross profit margin of more than 50% so I don't think it might improve the situation all that much in the long run.
heavyset_go 4y ago
They will pay someone on the other side of the planet 5 cents to spend 30 seconds applying a checklist of strict conditions against your case that if not met means you're SOL.
- hmate9 4y ago
  If that’s the case then it will very quickly be known that spending this money is useless. This is supposed to be a win win for both the platform and the user and not a source of revenue. Of course if google decides to try and squeeze a couple of extra bucks of profit from this then it is useless.
SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
So if the company denies your claim they also keep the $50? Sounds like the incentives are pointing away from a just outcome.
buzer 3y ago
There kind of is this with many companies these days. It's called arbitration. Someone did it with PayPal a while ago for example (ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33462658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33462658). In many cases it's free, but in some (especially b2b) there might be terms that say each needs to pay their own fees or that winner needs to pay loser's fees.

Allow people to pay say $50 in order to get someone to actually review all the facts about the case and refund the user the money if they were right.

by hmate9 4y ago

Allow people to pay say $50 in order to get someone to actually review all the facts about the case and refund the user the money if they were right.

prox 4y ago

I feel this one should be enshrined in law.

Broken_Hippo 4y ago

So, no poor people get this. I mean, it is the cost of nearly 7 hours work if you only make minimum wage. It doesn't really matter if the money will be refunded - it can't be used on food while the company holds the money for weeks. Honestly, they should be required to simply have a case worker look at everything if the person has exhausted other options. Those other options should be easily found on the company's website (or facebook page, etc). And the case worker should actually have the power to decide either way, free from coercion and without quotas leaning either direction.

patates 4y ago

I like the idea, while thinking the next steps in case that goes wrong gives me a pause. What do you do if that person you get for 50$ seems incompetent? Exponentially increasing fees to get a review? Remembering again, perfection is the enemy of good, what we have here is more than good enough for most of the cases perhaps.

whatshisface 4y ago
Here's a little sci-fi short fiction... In 2041, Google begins offering a service where you can pay $28 ($50 in USD2041) for a human to review your claim. Since it costs them $8 to do this, they will allow you to appeal their decision as many times as you want. In 2042, a data analyst discovers that routing claims to a specific subset of reviewers maximizes this revenue stream and updates the business logic accordingly.
searchableguy 4y ago
This is a business model for many hardware vendors who sell support and insurance with gross profit margin of more than 50% so I don't think it might improve the situation all that much in the long run.

heavyset_go 4y ago

They will pay someone on the other side of the planet 5 cents to spend 30 seconds applying a checklist of strict conditions against your case that if not met means you're SOL.

hmate9 4y ago
If that’s the case then it will very quickly be known that spending this money is useless. This is supposed to be a win win for both the platform and the user and not a source of revenue. Of course if google decides to try and squeeze a couple of extra bucks of profit from this then it is useless.

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago

So if the company denies your claim they also keep the $50? Sounds like the incentives are pointing away from a just outcome.

buzer 3y ago

There kind of is this with many companies these days. It's called arbitration. Someone did it with PayPal a while ago for example (ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33462658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33462658). In many cases it's free, but in some (especially b2b) there might be terms that say each needs to pay their own fees or that winner needs to pay loser's fees.