Am I missing something here?
Not if you think all credit scores are earned "fairly" and are 100% indicative of future willingness to pay. If that's the case, yes, it's probably a zero-sum game.
I think it's possible neither of these are the case.
As far as indicator to pay, I think it's completely possible that the people intelligent enough to realize their credit score is bad, that it's affecting them, and find a tool like this to utilize short-term are more likely to turn around their credit than the average person that has bad credit. E.g. it's more likely that they got bad credit before realizing the importance of good credit, and are working to turn that around, and are more likely in the future to pay debts to get their credit good than the average person with the same initial credit score as them.
As far as fairness of credit scores, MANY people with bad credit are affected by medical bills. Like,
this survey from January of this year showed that:
"Among people with health insurance, one in five (20%) working-age Americans report having problems paying medical bills in the past year that often cause serious financial challenges and changes in employment and lifestyle, finds a comprehensive new Kaiser Family Foundation/New York Times survey. As expected, the situation is even worse among people who are uninsured: half (53%) face problems with medical bills, bringing the overall total to 26 percent."
26 percent of people had trouble with medical bills in the last YEAR. And obviously some people will have older medical debt. So yeah, I'd imagine a good chunk of the people using a service like this are affected by something like that. It's terrible.
Someone like that, who has been hit by a medical situation, and due to the * health insurance system our country has, now is getting hurt AGAIN by that hitting their credit, costing them more in interest, etc.
Someone like that I think may be more likely to pay their bills than someone else with that same credit score who got it by not paying a bunch of random (utility, CC, etc.) bills. So I don't know that it's "fair" in either sense of the term for them to have that credit score--it may not be fair as in it may not be accurate, and it may not be fair in the golden rule style of kicking someone when they're down.
Now, obviously, you don't know why the person is boosting their credit. But with the large prevalence of medical debt, I think it's likely that many people with bad credit scores are in this situation and may seek out this tool. It might be more right, in a golden rule sense, to help them out.
So, in short, I think your concern of a zero-sum game and the golden rule is totally valid. I just don't know that it is the case that it's a zero sum game, and even if it is, I don't know that it's the case that it's still not moral (if you're going by the golden rule) to help them, and I think it may well not be the case with either of those two things.
Again, it's like I've mentioned before in this thread: it's something each person will have to think about, and decide on their own what they believe, where their line lines, and act accordingly.
Thanks for bringing up the concern, it's definitely a good one, and definitely one everyone considering this should think about! :)