"If you Google this string, you'll find the arguments" is a logical fallacy. You are claiming that there are arguments for why this rule is true, but not providing any. If anything, the only thing this statement proofs is that you are not able to explain why doing this is even a good idea.
And FWIW, I actually google this and none of the first 5 results actually explained why this rule makes sense. They were all posts of the form "20 rules to blindly follow when writing a resumee".
In other parts of this thread, I've explained why we don't use I. Let me gather them for you.
1 - Redundancy. Imagine a list of bullets that start with the word "I".
- I wrote a playbook for product implementations.
- I managed the project...
- I oversaw a team that...
Hopefully by now you see this wouldn't be a fun read.
2 - Necessity - The resume is about you, not others, so we don't need to say that you (I) did the things on the resume. That is understood, and why 'implied' first person fulfills our needs while also reducing the content. If I ask you what you did today, you can just say "Watched TV, mowed the lawn, ..." - you don't need to say "I watched TV, and then I mowed the lawn."
I hope this helps, and maybe we can put this to bed.
It mainly makes a difference for candidates in more competitive situations - give a recruiter two resumes with somewhat parallel experience, and the better resume (based on writing style, obeying stylistic norms, etc.) is probably more likely to get the interview.
As for a "scam", my results are hard to argue with, and most clients seem to think the investment was a good one. Many of my clients come to me after having failed to get interviews for their dream jobs, and after working with me their fortunes often change. Many of my clients approach me trying to get jobs at places like FAANG companies, while many others just are looking to work at places most people have never heard of.
Would you like to be done now? We both have better things to do.