The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner • Hacker News Board

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#461

Post by wannabag » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 7:50 AM UTC

For anyone interested in how this can be changed, here’s an example from the Nordics.

In the early 2000s, the Swedish tax agency, Skatteverket, started a journey from “tax police” to service. This was a radical change that affected every aspect and function of the bureaucracy. It went from far down the list to the second most trusted agency (after the Swedish Armed Forces) in 2023 [1].

As a citizen, the differences are notable. I came to Sweden after the change, and my previous experiences in other countries were very similar to the friction-filled endeavor implied by the author. The people I dealt with were similarly unhelpful, unconcerned, if not downright undermining my efforts to comply.

This is all a result of a system that breeds friction. Citizens and bureaucrats alike simply play their part. Moving to Sweden was an otherworldly experience. My first mistake, and resulting interaction with the agency, was met with compassion and understanding from a bureaucrat who then made an effort to help put things right. It’s hard to describe how radically different the situation felt. Anger, frustration, and helplessness were gone. Instead, I felt like sending flowers to Karin, the bureaucrat (I really should have). I’ve become a better citizen, more likely to comply going forward.

I wish more agencies around the world would take note, especially now, in a world trending toward fewer human interactions and increasing digitalization. Bureaucracies and technology alike should continue to be built to improve collective human experiences, not break us apart.

[1] https://chef.se/artiklar/skatteverkets-forandringsresa-nagra...

Apologies for the poor quality link, my morning Googling wasn't very effective.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#462

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 7:51 AM UTC

newer_vienna wrote: post #314

kevinh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and if depressed people weren't sad, they'd be happier. 'Just don't get frustrated' isn't actionable advice.

That's not what I said. To feel an emotion is morally neutral, while to use your emotions to cause harm is wrong.

And where's the reaction of Karen using her apathy to harm someone who just wants to get their benefits and not go homeless? Apathy is an emotjon as well.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#463

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 7:54 AM UTC

rgblambda wrote: post #425

cowthulhu wrote: post #91

The author really lucked out that the government employee was not actually malicious. I can think of a good few ways she could have made life much more difficult for the author, even if he was likely to ultimately succeed.

Was thinking this too. She could have blocked that number on the (valid) basis that it was intentionally spamming them, and then stopped their benefits.

Someone maliciously compliant enough to do this probably isn't someone you want to escalate with. Not with a reprimand, firing, or even lawsuit.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#464

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 8:04 AM UTC

dqv wrote: post #456

scottlamb wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you...to an extent. I just got off the phone with Comcast Business Class, asking for a refund after I had 26 hours of downtime in the past week. Not a company with a great reputation for customer service, and the agent I spoke with was probably not exactly earning a six-figure salary. He was empathetic. The outcome was unsatisfactory [1], but he was polite, he said he understood how important availability is m…

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, some people thrive on talking to a lot of people. For everyone else, it can be exhausting. It's hard to navigate social differences talking to 15+ strangers every hour for 8 hours. Each person has a unique expectation about how to relate to them. It's hard knowing, for example, who wants to be interrupted and who doesn't [0]. Some people talk in vagueries with exp…

>Yes, some people thrive on talking to a lot of people. For everyone else, it can be exhausting. It's hard to navigate social differences talking to 15+ strangers every hour for 8 hours a day.

Okay. It's a job. I know choices are slim, but "its hard for my mental state" has never been a satisfactory excuse to further displease customers.

>So either I would have to lie and say "wow, that must be so frustrating", which is not empathy,

Sometimes a little white lie is easier than a cold hard truth. Just ask any salesman.

>And that brings me next to the next thing I don't understand... either that person was also lying or somehow people have the ability to just contemporaneously download the feelings of other people, feel them, but also not act like they're feeling them

Given the author is blind, I imagine he's better than average at reading the tone of voice. He could have interpreted it wrong, but I'm sure this dismissive tone isn't new to him.

>Finally I ask the question of am I evolved to even be able to socially interact with 120 strangers in a given day?

Probably not. But I'm not sure what you want me to say. I don't want to be the same as Karen and say "suck it up, it's a job. But this is such a commin feeling on modern society. If we aren't going to collectively rise against its, we're bearing the flood alone.

Given how we're still actively drowning people, I don't see us coming together soon.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#465

Post by mlrtime » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 10:17 AM UTC

metalliqaz wrote: post #391

observationist wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People given a tiny amount of power with no consequences for misusing it, inflicting their power on people for no better reason than that they can. Government is parasitic, with no market feedback, so people that would normally get weeded out for being awful humans, for incompetence, for psychopathy of various flavors - they all end up with a long, well paid career and no consequences. I find the story unlikely, read…

> with no market feedback It's amazing how many people seem to have learned their civics from conservative talk shows. government employees work for elected officials, who hear often from angry "customers" and are constantly at risk of losing their jobs following scheduled "performance reviews"

LOL government employees and "at risk of losing their jobs following scheduled "performance reviews""

And you are criticizing half the country based on a ideology? These employees are at almost no risk of losing their jobs because someone calls their representative to complain, this is fantasy.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#466

Post by ahtihn » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 10:30 AM UTC

palmotea wrote: post #328

gosub100 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I do with telemarketer scammers. I have no limit of depravity that I draw from in attempt to offend them. No limits. And exactly for the reasons you describe. Get them to crack and quit the company.

> This is exactly what I do with telemarketer scammers. I have no limit of depravity that I draw from in attempt to offend them. No limits. And exactly for the reasons you describe. Get them to crack and quit the company. Have you heard of pig butchering? Sometimes the "scammer" you're talking to is practically a slave that will be beaten if they don't hit their numbers: https://www.wired.com/story/the-red-bull-leaks…

> Sometimes the "scammer" you're talking to is practically a slave that will be beaten if they don't hit their numbers:

Doing crime to save your own life does not excuse the crime.

They're attemtping to ruin someone else's life to save their own.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#467

Post by ahtihn » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 10:33 AM UTC

palmotea wrote: post #402

gosub100 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a problem for the telcos to resolve. I.e. don't allow calls from nations that do this.

>>> This is exactly what I do with telemarketer scammers. I have no limit of depravity that I draw from in attempt to offend them. No limits. And exactly for the reasons you describe. Get them to crack and quit the company. >> Have you heard of pig butchering? Sometimes the "scammer" you're talking to is practically a slave that will be beaten if they don't hit their numbers: https://www.wired.com/story/the-red-bull-…

> an innocent person

They are absolutely not innocent. They have agency!

They decided ruining other people's life is better than whatever the consequences are for themselves.

It's only normal that people they target retaliate.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#468

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 10:34 AM UTC

canucker2016 wrote: post #436

catapart wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the author didn't make anything harder for anyone because the "fax" wasn't ever even printed, much less caused a backup or even a slowdown at all. the giveaway was having the karen call back to request the person stop. the initial phone call undoubtedly happened, but the fax was consumed by the same systems used in medical offices all around the country, which means that it arrived as a pdf in some repository and it…

The feature is called "unified inbox" - faxes appear as a PDF attachment in an email inbox somewhere. If the government department had a unified inbox for emails/faxes accessible by workers, then there wouldn't have been any "pain" in the form of consumables by the fax machine. That was my worry. Luckily for the author, the article says the fax number was handled by an old-school, real-life fax machine: It was Karen.…

Yup.

Myself, I only saw one fax machine in actual operation in my life, some 15 years ago in a large government physics lab in United Kingdom. That machine sat on a desk near me, and would absolutely print anything and everything that would be sent to it.

Since we were a small internal software team in a big physics lab (vs. front-line customer service), it wasn't used much - I only ever saw it print automobile ads, at the rate about one per day.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#469

Post by kelnos » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 10:41 AM UTC

ccorcos wrote: post #433

tyingq wrote: post #18

Sounds like it's not real but... It reads like an indictment of the government employee personally, rather than the rules and constraints that employee is forced to use. Probably fair to comment on the interaction, whether the person was rude, and so on. But blaming them for not accepting email is kind of silly. They are not empowered to do that kind of thing.

> But blaming them for not accepting email is kind of silly. They are not empowered to do that kind of thing. Perhaps it's irrational, but I have this viceral feeling that refuses to allow me to believe that people don't have agency. Who is her manager? Tell them how stupid this is! When they say "there's nothing I can do about it", then talk to their manager! I recently left Chase bank due to this same kind of helpl…

You have a choice when it comes to where you do your banking. You don't have a choice when it comes to where you get your disability benefits.

Chase knows this, and while many of their employees may not be empowered to go off script, the bank sees when people leave, and often does hear what those employees have to say when it comes to customer complaints.

The mid-level bureaucrat at the disability office doesn't care about any of that, because they have a monopoly on what they do. You either work with them on their terms, or you don't get what you need.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#470

Post by kelnos » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 10:46 AM UTC

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #61

tyingq wrote: post #18

Sounds like it's not real but... It reads like an indictment of the government employee personally, rather than the rules and constraints that employee is forced to use. Probably fair to comment on the interaction, whether the person was rude, and so on. But blaming them for not accepting email is kind of silly. They are not empowered to do that kind of thing.

Yeah, this anger is entirely misplaced. I don't think this woman is happy to have to enforce this idiotic law and listen to angry people all day long. It's the politicians that people like us elected because they promised to cut wasteful spending, so now blind people have to prove they're still blind once a year. We did that to them.

It's probably not actually politicians in this case. It is highly unlikely that "no PDFs as proof of disability" is written in any law anywhere. It's almost certainly a policy developed by the agency at hand, by career government employees, not elected officials or political appointees.

And it's probably for a dumb reason, like the IT department doesn't want to deal with security issues around email attachments, or doesn't want to build and maintain a web-based portal where people can upload their documents.