- This topic has 18 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 6 months, 4 weeks ago by Carl.
October 3, 2019 at 10:54 am #60401
By Sandy . . . One of the issues that we keep high on our radar is that of business and social entities excluding persons who are listed on sexual off
[See the full post at: Nextdoor.com hangs out “Not welcome” sign to those on the registry]
October 3, 2019 at 11:18 am #60402
I had been on nextdoor for a couple of years. When my grandson was put on the list (he was living with me), nextdoor somehow found out about it and blocked me. This is my private email and no one but me uses it. Another case of collateral damage. Then when he moved, I asked to be reinstated and they wanted a copy of my identification and other things which is none of their business.
October 3, 2019 at 3:20 pm #60419
Address check and cross-reference is what did you and your grandson in when he moved in and it was checked. That is why they wanted verification upon his leaving.
October 3, 2019 at 4:25 pm #60429
When my old Facebook page got deleted, they required me to send them a copy of my drivers license (allowing me to only blur out my address) but instead I decided to grab an image from google of a cartoon character sticking up the middle finger. I hope they enjoyed that.
In Facebook’s defense though, I believe they initially did not want to be bothered with the removal of users who were on the SOR. But it was our lovely former Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal who pushed social media sites to eliminate S.O.’s.
Now he’s a senator and he’s in favor of “sanctuary cities”. So, dear ol’ Dick likes to continue the punishment of people who have already served their time while being in favor of those who enter the country illegally. Go figure.
That’s politics for you.
October 5, 2019 at 4:28 pm #60478
Tim in WI
If you know about any ” material evidence” of the CT Senators backdoor actions I could use it in FTRs. Because WI, SOR forms specifically demand FB Id data from registrants a door is opened to discuss how FB uses email to impose TOS infractions. Proof of collision, without law between big firms and citizens representative is a no, no normally because it lacks good faith.
October 3, 2019 at 11:49 am #60405
Its probably so they can talk about their sex offender neighbors and watch you etc.. I would love to see what is being said you just know that the focus of much attention has got to be the creepy sex offender guy down the road LOL!
I can imagine this exchange:
He took out the garbage yesterday and i saw him look at my daughter and smile “insert creepy music here”. OMG! we have to get him out of the neighborhood.
If they would simply let me leave the country I would and i would never come back! If I was not on the registry I would still want to leave at this point this country is going to fail.
October 3, 2019 at 12:01 pm #60408
I had the same issue with next door when I bought my Ring cameras. I also got the same message. So I told myself that if the cops ever needed my assistance with camera footage of a possible crime, I refuse to give it to them. They can figure it out on their own.
October 3, 2019 at 3:21 pm #60420
They will use a subpoena if they have to if you have potentially useful footage.
October 3, 2019 at 12:26 pm #60412
While I have never been allowed to join next door, I have had several of my customers say they got my name off of Next Door to provide my services to them. Funny how that works.
October 3, 2019 at 3:21 pm #60422
Turn about is fair play. Good for you to have it pay you for business instead of taking away from.
October 3, 2019 at 2:05 pm #60417
I am a 72 year old woman that has never been in any trouble ever. My husband is an S.O. ,
Nextdoor took me off also. I just look at it as a blessing. I can find any information that I need elsewhere. What they talked about on the site was comical most of the time anyway. I don’t miss it and I’m glad that I am no longer a “member”.
October 3, 2019 at 3:32 pm #60425
Is it legal for “police departments, city governments, and other public agencies” to politic like that and encourage such a banishment as a preconditional rule of official agreements when gov’t entities paid by taxpayers are not supposed to lobby for such things while in an official capacity? That would seem it would run afoul of 42 USC 1983, but defer to @Robin, et al there to think on it. It is certainly using the registry and the status of those on it in a detrimental way against them. Would be interested in your thoughts. Not that I care to be involved with Nextdoor.com, but the principle of it all does not seem right.
October 3, 2019 at 4:20 pm #60427
“You may not use our Services if: (1) you are a resident of the United States and are under 13 years old, or if you are a resident of the EU and are under 16 years old….”
Ok, I have a question…. I’ve seen TOS like this on several sites (including Facebook). Why are we allowing people 13 years of age and up to utilize these sites while the European Union allows 16+ (our age of consent in 27 states)? Why aren’t WE the ones who say you can’t use a site unless you’re 16? (Old enough to operate a motor vehicle).
It’s as if the powers that be WANT underage users so they can have an excuse to do their typical fear monger tactics about how “unsafe” the internet is. The internet is probably more safe than most of Chicago.
Ever since I came off the registry I’ve made yet ANOTHER Facebook account that has NOT been deleted. This goes to show that they do use face recognition software no matter how much you fudge your real name. It surprises me though because in my only photo on my previous Facebook, I was wearing sunglasses. And we all know the old adage: For ever person in this world there is a twin somewhere. I’ve always been told I resemble someone’s cousin or ex boyfriend and even a younger version of Alec Baldwin. LOL! So I’m really confused as to how facial recognition can be considered accurate. Seems like it’s potential to be as faulty as polygraphs is possible.
October 3, 2019 at 4:58 pm #60431
Tim in WI
The ubiquitous nature (Packingham) of internet entities thrives on the inherent nature of the database machine to impose affirmative restraint, justified by past behavior or not. By removing registrants access to FB crowds the unnatural human disposition of machine subservience is sustained as the null output.
This .com exploits the people’s databases for profit in service provider clothing. The registry databases made it possible. My state had restrictions on unauthorized information disclosure s\ fine & jail for those administrative types caught. That changes in law occurred by overrun Byrne Grant crowd.
October 4, 2019 at 9:48 pm #60460
Several years ago Nextdoor dropped me because I was “a danger to the community.” This spring they invented me and others on the registry here in Nebraska back on. I have posted pictures and stories about our cat, Peaches. Now we are recognized as Peaches home. We also answered a post about a new “predator” moving into the area by explaining that address was the Veteran’s Hospital.
October 5, 2019 at 4:14 pm #60476
Tim in WI
This .com invites you back and you accept their invitation to exploit you and your animal for site content. They could be paying you for the content you provide. Instead you participate absent consideration like FB users.
This is the exact same tact taken by Charles Schwab recently to keep their portfolios actively involved in the cyber market demanding freedom from fees. All of these cyber firms will face a reckoning for their exploitation of citizens data. FB was popped for a meager 5B, Utube another exploiter firm tapped for 250mUSD.
Those exploited however will not see a Nickel from either firm. Free men demand payment as wages to maintain others machine properties. That many expect less displays a certain needy disposition and seek electronic means to fill the social void in their lives.
October 10, 2019 at 3:05 pm #60615
Ken in MS
This article (and ensuing comments) came at a good time for me. I just received an invitation to a new NextDoor group in my little town, written explicitly to the people on my street. I won’t consider joining. And I am concerned that the added exposure of listing RSOs in the group area will put my family and myself at increased risk.
October 25, 2019 at 10:45 am #60994
(I posted this on another forum topic, adding here since I didn’t see it first)
A couple days ago we got mail from “nextdoor.com” but strangely it was addressed from our neighbors.
What a great coincidence that it was a week until Halloween and sherrifs were rolling through the street randomly.
I did my research and put two and two together really fast. Nextdoor.com basically is a work-around to the Meagan’s law website. Normally people going to search there are greeted with a warning to not use the site to harass anyone and so on. So they created a “web service” with the goal of sounding like “your neighbors” are already a part of it.
Once there you’ll see just how “neighborly” they really are, and you’ll find groups dedicated to (illegally) privatized policing and “informing” the other “neighbors” of registrants addresses. All without that nagging Meagan’s law warning, yay. So it’s a sneaky way of promoting almost out right mob rule mentality that I imagine leads to property damage and other “crimes” that sherrifs will turn a blind eye to and say “well you know it’s just you, since you’re an rso”.
They sure get creative don’t they.
October 29, 2019 at 3:58 pm #61121
Haha, those idiots also just sent me a “neighborly” invite to join as well.
January 13, 2020 at 11:35 am #67095
Next Door claims they are required by law enforcement and other government agencies to refuse membership to registered sex offenders. This is illegal as it runs afoul if the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In this situation, members of government are actively limiting the free speech rights of citizens on the registry. It’s one thing for a private company like Facebook or Next Door to implement such a policy, but it crosses the line of legality when the government does it. In fact, a recent court ruling resulted in the nullification of laws preventing sex offenders from participating in social media, so that statute could be applied in this case.