5 ms·

I appreciate that you're here to answer questions, Matt. Two questions if you're still around: 1. Are you saying that Dustin lied about submitting a drivers li

by angilly 12y ago

I appreciate that you're here to answer questions, Matt. Two questions if you're still around: 1. Are you saying that Dustin lied about submitting a drivers license? His blog post clearly states that he submitted a drivers license. So are you saying he is lying? 2. Why do you allow clients to pay you before you've properly identified the freelancer? That process seems completely backwards and asking for trouble. I would expect that a freelancer would need to verify their identify before they are allowed to even be listed in the marketplace, way before you would accept funds on their behalf.

mattbarrie 12y ago
Hi Angilly 1) I cannot comment on the specifics as I hope you can understand. 2) We don't ID check all the accounts at signup. That would be logistically impossible. We have 11 million users. Regards Matt
- kylemclaren 12y ago
  Matt, I refuse to use Freelancer or endorse it until the murky issue regarding the drivers licence is cleared up. Why was it not accepted as valid identification?
- angilly 12y ago
  That's a very poor answer, Matt. The audience here is a hell of a lot smarter than that (and right now, very skeptical of your business). Showing up here was a nice gesture, but if you're not going to answer questions thoughtfully, it's not going to help you.
  - richardw 12y ago
    By specifying exactly what the verification issue is they likely break trust with users and potentially expose themselves legally.
    - ForHackernews 12y ago
      You're doing it wrong, and we're not going to tell you what you're doing wrong.
      - richardw 12y ago
        You're doing it wrong but we won't publish what you did wrong on an online forum.
        donkeyd 12y ago
        I have to agree with what you posted, even though I'd like to know why the provided ID wasn't valid. A voice of reason like this is what the internet needs more of. Unfortunately the majority doesn't seem to understand the concept of objective reasoning.
        scintill76 12y ago
        For this subthread about posting online, I agree, but you realize OP couldn't get an answer on this in private, either?
    - scintill76 12y ago
      The customer is claiming their "verification process" is not possible to satisfy, and customer service is non-responsive. If the customer's story is true, the only issue is stupidity on the part of Freelancer.com. All the CEO said is the customer "failed to complete our Know Your Customer (KYC) process" -- ignoring the customer's claims that the process is completely broken and customer service is not providing a way to meet the requirements. If there were more to it, I think Freelancer.com could get away with something like "The customer has not submitted what he said he did." In the absence of that, I think it's reasonable to assume the customer's story is correct and honest, and Freelancer.com has really bungled this and is only digging their hole deeper with form-letter responses on social media. As for privacy and legal liability, he's already confirmed that someone is a customer, revealed the location (New York) of an employer of said customer, and divulged details about their response to the employer, so ducking behind "privacy" when the crux of the issue is questioned, rings hollow to me.
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Poor indeed. While I kind-of appreciate the privacy/legal issues involved, why did Matt say anything at all then? He's already claimed a specific customer didn't meet KYC requirements, has named the locale of the employer (New York), the customer's claims and their responses are quite public on the Facebook page and the OP, so dodging this question just looks like they have something to hide. If the customer didn't exist or was completely misrepresenting the situation, I think it'd be fair game for them to protect themselves by denying his specific allegations. Saying "The customer didn't complete our KYC process" doesn't help at all, when the customer is claiming the KYC process is impossible to complete because of contradictory and unreasonable requirements from the company! As it stands, I'm not really seeing any other reasonable explanation than that Freelancer.com's customer service is clueless, their KYC department is confused, and they're more concerned about form-letter damage-control responses on social media, than about helping their customer.

by angilly 12y ago

mattbarrie 12y ago

Hi Angilly 1) I cannot comment on the specifics as I hope you can understand. 2) We don't ID check all the accounts at signup. That would be logistically impossible. We have 11 million users. Regards Matt

kylemclaren 12y ago
Matt, I refuse to use Freelancer or endorse it until the murky issue regarding the drivers licence is cleared up. Why was it not accepted as valid identification?
angilly 12y ago
That's a very poor answer, Matt. The audience here is a hell of a lot smarter than that (and right now, very skeptical of your business). Showing up here was a nice gesture, but if you're not going to answer questions thoughtfully, it's not going to help you.
- richardw 12y ago
  By specifying exactly what the verification issue is they likely break trust with users and potentially expose themselves legally.
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    You're doing it wrong, and we're not going to tell you what you're doing wrong.
    - richardw 12y ago
      You're doing it wrong but we won't publish what you did wrong on an online forum.
      - donkeyd 12y ago
        I have to agree with what you posted, even though I'd like to know why the provided ID wasn't valid. A voice of reason like this is what the internet needs more of. Unfortunately the majority doesn't seem to understand the concept of objective reasoning.
      - scintill76 12y ago
        For this subthread about posting online, I agree, but you realize OP couldn't get an answer on this in private, either?
  - scintill76 12y ago
    The customer is claiming their "verification process" is not possible to satisfy, and customer service is non-responsive. If the customer's story is true, the only issue is stupidity on the part of Freelancer.com. All the CEO said is the customer "failed to complete our Know Your Customer (KYC) process" -- ignoring the customer's claims that the process is completely broken and customer service is not providing a way to meet the requirements. If there were more to it, I think Freelancer.com could get away with something like "The customer has not submitted what he said he did." In the absence of that, I think it's reasonable to assume the customer's story is correct and honest, and Freelancer.com has really bungled this and is only digging their hole deeper with form-letter responses on social media. As for privacy and legal liability, he's already confirmed that someone is a customer, revealed the location (New York) of an employer of said customer, and divulged details about their response to the employer, so ducking behind "privacy" when the crux of the issue is questioned, rings hollow to me.
- scintill76 12y ago
  Poor indeed. While I kind-of appreciate the privacy/legal issues involved, why did Matt say anything at all then? He's already claimed a specific customer didn't meet KYC requirements, has named the locale of the employer (New York), the customer's claims and their responses are quite public on the Facebook page and the OP, so dodging this question just looks like they have something to hide. If the customer didn't exist or was completely misrepresenting the situation, I think it'd be fair game for them to protect themselves by denying his specific allegations. Saying "The customer didn't complete our KYC process" doesn't help at all, when the customer is claiming the KYC process is impossible to complete because of contradictory and unreasonable requirements from the company! As it stands, I'm not really seeing any other reasonable explanation than that Freelancer.com's customer service is clueless, their KYC department is confused, and they're more concerned about form-letter damage-control responses on social media, than about helping their customer.