
Active freelancer banned on Upwork after video verification process - gnufreex
https://medium.com/@mihajlomilenovic/upwork-banned-after-3-years-and-50k-earned-for-being-unshaven-6b1450af2572
======
coderintherye
I think with fraud detection, there is sort of this ingrained idea that you
can't tell the person in question what the suspected fraud is with the
hypothesis that it will allow fraudsters to figure out a way around your
detection.

I don't know that this hypothesis is true though and it certainly harms your
real users when there are false positives. Fraud is certainly a big problem
for platforms, so it's not like they can just ignore, but at the same time
surely can do better than treating your long-time users to a ban with no
explanation and no warning.

~~~
martin_a
Feels somewhat like security through obfuscation and I think fraudsters will
find a way around anyway.

------
duiker101
I am confused, maybe I misread something but it seems like you did get banned
for unknown reasons (which very sadly seems to becoming a common occurrence)
but has nothing to do with how you looked like that morning? Are you sure you
did not violate any ToS even if accidentally?

~~~
gnufreex
Well I was never warned over 3 years. I never accepted payment away from
Upwork, i maybe couple of times got off site communication on client request,
but nobody gave me infraction for that. I think that should come before the
ban.

I figure there is two possible reasons they banned me. Facial recognition
software decided that my profile pic (when I was younger and clean shaven) is
not sufficiently similar to my pic taken during video call.

Other reason might be that they think my services are not being needed, as I
had interviews without hire... except those were ones where I did not want to
be hired, it was not like client rejected me. I simply wanted to pick best
jobs, while still having time to concentrate on my long running contract with
full time employer. In a hindsight, I probably should have set my profile to
private in order not to get any invites. And go public only when I want side-
job. I did not know they count that metric.

~~~
deanclatworthy
Or maybe this is a big misunderstanding, and your blog post title is
clickbait.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I see nothing wrong with that.

The man's livelihood was destroyed, without a provided justification or an
apparent means of appeal. The "court of public opinion" is basically his only
shot to get it back, and that requires views. Clickbait gets views.

~~~
dang
That's not a bad argument, but it isn't a good fit for HN. Clickbait is
against the site guidelines, because its strengths—attracting quick attention
and generating indignation—are actually weaknesses for intellectual curiosity,
the main value of this site.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
ilaksh
Its not clickbait. They gave him no explanation for the ban. They required a
video call. It is reasonable to speculate that his appearance could have been
a factor.

~~~
dang
Ok, but the title doesn't speculate; it makes the claim outright. People
naturally feel rage at the image of someone being banned so arbitrarily and
trivially. Generating rage with evidenceless claims is definitely clickbait.

------
wycy
Two thoughts:

1\. Ofalyn really wanted to hurry you off the chat. Seems pretty
unprofessional.

2\. It's a little painful to see some of those job postings. "Virtual staff
needed for long term employment -- $65". Yikes. The gig economy.

~~~
gnufreex
That is my first gig for VOIP company for 5$ a day that I described at the
start. Just to show how I had to start. And after all that climbing, they do
this.

~~~
wycy
Still, the idea that a even a "starter" freelance DevOps job could ever be
$5/day, especially for a "long term" gig, is kind of depressing. It's way, way
less than US minimum wage.

------
neilv
One general concern that this report raises is that an unaccountable company
can suddenly cut off a person from working for many companies, as well as from
the reputation the person built (in the metrics of the company).

~~~
ilaksh
Upwork is another technopoly. They have such a dominant position that it is
practically a monopoly.

These technology monopolies run by private interests should be replaced by
public decentralized protocols and networks. Then cases like this would have
public records available. And there would be the possibility of multiple
companies operating in the network that would allow for competition.

~~~
bradleyhb
Want to do something about it?

~~~
ilaksh
Well I thought making people aware of the issue was a start.

There are some decentralized alternatives that have been started. For example
ethlance.

------
killVehicle
Hmmm, this is a pretty relevant reversal of roles, when you think about it.
Usually we have individual users running around causing mayhem from beyond the
boundaries of jurisdictions that might try to seek damages or prosecute
crimes. Usually it's individuals from other countries crossing distance to
attack organizations.

Here, we have an organization damaging an individual with possible criminal
actions, from beyond the individual's reach. Discriminating based on general
appearance isn't always an acceptable choice, when it's not relevant to
business.

There might be no recourse in situations that cross different borders and
jurisdictions...

------
neilv
Is there a problem with this HN post, that would remove it from view? (While I
was typing a comment, the HN title changed twice, and then I couldn't find the
post anywhere within the first several front pages of HN (searching each page
for "upwork" and "medium"), despite the post having 42 points in 58 minutes.
The post is still findable on the second page of "new" at the moment, but
seems stuck at 42 points from about 7:00..7:15 US Eastern so far, so might end
up not being seen by most US HNers.)

~~~
Sharlin
Probably flagged (due to the original clickbait title), which penalizes a post
pretty drastically in the HN ranking algorithm.

~~~
neilv
The first title I saw did sound a bit clickbaity, and it looked like someone
later rewrote the title, and then tweaked the rewrite (changed "user" to
"freelancer").

If the penalty for sounding clickbaity in the submitted title is that the post
then won't be seen, that sounds plausibly appropriate, in the context of
widespread poor media practices we're trying to improve.

In this particular instance, such strict measures might be unfortunate, if the
writer is raising a general industry situation, in which many of us might be
involved without knowing it, and which situation should be improved.

Would the writer be permitted to resubmit the post?

~~~
dang
The submitted title was "Upwork: Banned me after 3 years and $50k earned, for
being unshaven". A moderator changed it to something more neutral, in keeping
with the site guidelines
([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).

In this case, I don't know if it makes sense to resubmit the post. It's
obviously very important for the author; anyone can understand that. But it
also doesn't contain enough information to gratify intellectual curiosity or
feed a substantive discussion, which are the main criteria for whether
something is on topic here. I think it would be ok to give it a try, though,
and see how the community reacts. The author emailed us, so I'll let him know
this by email.

A general point: something I didn't realize before moderating HN, but now know
all too well, is that the reasons users give others for why they were banned
are usually inaccurate. Sometimes that's because they leave out critical
information about what they did. Other times it's because they really have no
clue why they were banned. And it can easily be both of these. As a result,
these stories tend to be misleadingly one-sided, so the default response
should usually be to suspend judgement until more information is available.
That's just a general comment—not about this particular story.

~~~
gnufreex
Thanks. I will do so. Upwork finally responded to me and said this

Hello Mihajlo,

Maintaining the integrity of our site is of utmost importance to our team and
to our community of users. Considering the violations that have occurred. Due
to the security of processes, I am unable to provide additional details.

I understand this decision is a difficult one for you, but I am comfortable
with my team’s choice to close your account. The decision is final.

I wish you the best in any future business endeavors, even though our working
relationship is now effectively ended.

Best,

Cheryl

So basically some rule that I dont know about but they wont tell me.

~~~
neilv
Unfortunately, US companies tend not to subscribe to US ideals of judicial
process.

If you don't know why this company did this, and it's put you in a bad
situation, then one option is to contact an organization like `eff.org`, and
ask them for ideas. They might be interested in the issue of Internet-enabled
"gig economy" middle party accountability. If not, they might be able to point
you to the right US government authority, or to a different non-profit
organization.

You could also consult a private attorney. In the US, you can get a referral
to an attorney through a Bar Association, and ask for a free initial
consultation, during which they will give you an idea what they can try, and
how expensive that will be. If you're in the US, you can also sometimes go to
a free legal clinic operated by a nearby law school.

But, I hate to say it, be cautious about raising a fuss. It sounds like you're
already burnt irrevocably at the original company. (Even when someone in an
organization realizes a mistake was made, an organization will tend to double-
down rather than admit it.) But raising a fuss might also preclude future work
at many other companies (which are often paranoid about human resources). It's
not fair to the individual, nor good for society when people who feel wronged
are afraid to speak up, but it's often the reality.

I'm sorry that you're currently losing income and the reputation that you
built up through a company, and I hope that can be straightened out.

------
actionowl
I also tried doing UpWork in my spare time, I had a few gigs with good reviews
and made ~$300 over about a month. I only took on jobs that I enjoyed so it
wasn't like I was trying to live off it.

They also sent me a similar email and requested a video call to verify my
identity. They quized me with some programming questions. I found it very
impersonal and insulting honestly. I did not get banned but I stopped using
their platform after that.

I also tried Freelancer but never did any work there, it was an awful
expereince but for different reasons.

~~~
gnufreex
I got that call in 2016. I passed that. This was maybe second or third time
they have a call with me, and this one was the shortest. Maybe 3 minutes top.

------
xhkkffbf
I think you should consider suing for defamation. They have effectively hurt
your relationship with clients by kicking you off the platform. That's
tortuous interference and defamation.

This business shouldn't be a star chamber with the power to destroy people's
careers. A lawyer might be able to help you. And if the company did it to you,
there's a good chance they did it to others and you can get class action
status. I would seriously consider legal remedies.

