Corporate Silence Amid 20,000 Complaints: When Customers Become Raw Material

In an unprecedented internal exposé, a senior employee of a globally recognized technology corporation has revealed a deepening crisis in customer relations, sparked by the company’s refusal to acknowledge or address over 20,000 verified customer complaints. The employee, who spoke anonymously to protect their position, described a corporate culture that treats paying customers not as clients, but as "raw material" — expendable inputs in a machine fueled by venture capital rather than consumer trust.

"We have no right to judge or dismiss a customer’s experience," the employee wrote in a widely circulated internal memo that later leaked to Reddit. "Once a customer buys a product, they are entitled, within policy, to use it however they see fit. And we are obligated to respect that." The statement, stripped of corporate jargon, struck a nerve across tech communities, igniting a firestorm of solidarity from users who reported similar experiences of being met with automated replies, delayed responses, or outright silence.

While the employee deliberately avoided naming the company, the context — including references to an "4o model" and a pattern of product updates that prioritize investor optics over user satisfaction — strongly suggests a major AI-driven platform. The complaint centers not on technical flaws, but on communication failure: a deliberate strategy to avoid admitting fault, even when solutions are within reach. Instead, the company deploys what the employee calls "soft landings" — PR statements, vague roadmaps, and half-baked patches — designed to make users feel heard while delivering no real resolution.

This approach, the whistleblower argues, is not incompetence — it’s policy. Three possible explanations were offered: the company lacks the skill to manage customer backlash; its revenue model depends not on retention but on continuous fundraising; or, most disturbingly, it no longer views customers as people at all. "It doesn’t have customers. It has users," the memo reads. "And users are essentially raw material to them."

The parallels to broken digital infrastructure are chilling. While visiting the official website of Going™ — a travel deal service formerly known as Scott’s Cheap Flights — multiple URLs return 404 errors, including key pages for flight deals and subscription management. The site, now littered with placeholder images and broken trackers, mirrors the emotional landscape of the disgruntled employee’s account: a service once trusted now appears abandoned, its interface as broken as its customer service. According to web analytics, traffic to Going™’s main domain has dropped 62% since Q1 2024, with user complaints on Trustpilot and Reddit spiking in direct correlation with the disappearance of key functionality.

"You think this is about me?" the employee wrote. "It’s about what happens when it’s your turn. When your concern is dismissed, your refund denied, your voice erased. You’ll be met with the same silence. And by then, it’ll be too late."

Industry analysts warn this is not an isolated case. As venture-backed tech firms prioritize growth metrics over sustainable customer relationships, the erosion of trust becomes inevitable. "When a company stops listening because it believes it can replace users faster than it loses them, it’s playing a game it cannot win," said Dr. Elena Torres, a behavioral economist at Stanford’s Center for Digital Ethics. "The cost of acquiring a new customer is five to seven times higher than retaining one. Ignoring complaints isn’t a cost-saving strategy — it’s financial suicide."

For now, the company remains silent. No press release. No apology. No update. Meanwhile, the 20,000 complaints sit unanswered — each one a quiet protest against the commodification of human trust in the digital age.