ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 Recording Uploaded, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
Challenging Parole Conditions: postponed [details]
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

General News

Notes from the Handbasket: neighborly behavior, NextDoor

[handbasketnotes.blogspot.com]

NextDoor, a private social network for neighborhoods, is a popular means of letting neighbors know if you have a washer and dryer to sell or if you want to buy a camper. NextDoor lets people ask for plumber recommendations and post information about crime in the area.

A handy app for the neighborly…unless your address is on the sex offender registry.

No one who lives at a registered address is allowed to join NextDoor. Not the registrant, not the spouse. No one at that address.

 

Read more

 

Join the discussion

  1. cool CA RC

    How is this not punished? Another bullet for a lawsuit.
    Keep it coming!!

    • America's Most Hated

      There’s no lawsuit for this any more than there’s one against facebook. If they don’t want me using their private website, it’s fine. I’ve never heard of it anyhow.

      • Joe

        This is true… a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone unless they are a protected class. Just like “no shoes, no shirt, no service”.

        However! They are refusing service to anyone residing at the objectionable address. On what grounds should your wife / husband be prohibited from utilizing their services? That makes it a bit more interesting. Just another one of those fun collateral consequences of not abandoning a person on the registry.

        I agree with your sentiment about this company. Then again, I am very wary of all of these “free” services. There is no commodity more precious than your private consumer data. But you gotta hand it to them.

      • steve

        Yes but keeping track of all these companies than ban offenders sure is good ammo for future lawsuits agains the registry.

  2. AlexO

    Just another example of the public registry being no big deal.

  3. CR

    I tried to sign up a couple of years ago and was denied. Nexdoor told me that my address was listed as the residence of a registered sex offender. Yup.

    It definitely seems like a misguided policy for all the reasons listed by the author in her blog.

  4. David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

    The common denominator of all of these policies is the availability of sex offender registration via the web. Get rid of that and these will go away. Corporations now consider it legally advisable to act on information available to them, from a liability standpoint. Lawyers and insurance companies urge them to keep us out of these private resources. As long as they have access to this information, then they will feel obligated to act upon it. It also says much about the extent to which we have become a litigious society and the ease of suing entities tangentially related to events which are really beyond their control. This is why we have to destroy the Registry or, at minimum, destroy Megan’s Law websites.

    • Tim Moore

      Why would someone sue NextDoor for allowing a registered person on their site? Megan’s law site itself states it is not making a recommendation of dangerousness (ha, ha, what a joke). More likely it is because someone might complain and NextDoor would fear losing customers. Appearances are tied to the bottom line in social media. Bad press can kill profits. Nonetheless, they are breaking California code 290.46 for denying service to registrants. We all wish there was more litigation against this type of restriction, don’t we, but it won’t happen soon. Too many battles to fight.

      • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

        It’s not that having sex offenders is likely to make them a target for lawsuits so much as the extreme legal risk-aversion which exists in corporations today as well as the possibility of adverse publicity. Corporate lawyers live for these fine-grain, anal-retentive policies and their insurers are insane with them. It’s the pursuit of becoming a completely risk-free enterprise that drives company policy. And governments.

        • Tim Moore

          Then one of our goals should be to make it risky for them to ban registrants and their households. How are we going to do that? They don’t fear us (to their children, yes, but to their business models, no). Nor do governments fear us. The only way they are going to scrap the precious registry is if it becomes a liability to the judges and politicians. Look at judge Phyllis Hamilton. She didn’t fear us. She knew the government representative was inept. They didn’t even have to invest in an eloquent attorney. The judge feared the government, or rather feared the media and popular culture, that could label her soft on sex crimes and maybe a traitor to women and children. Appointed, yes, but no one gets confirmed who is not pro law enforcement. NextDoor wants to be “in” to use that 60’s phrase. It is part of their image. Virtual commune. Fit in and be cool. No one likes registrants, so it is safe to ban them. That’s all there is too it.

  5. Nicholas Maietta

    I was living in the Santa Cruz moutains recently and a month or so into living there, my roommate was removed from NextDoor without warning. I asked her to contact them and get in writing their response:

    JUN 16, 2017 | 11:16AM PDT
    David W. replied:

    Hi ****,

    I’m sorry to hear that you’re not receiving our responses.

    Unfortunately, public records indicate that you share a home with a registered sex offender (offender profile attached) on the California Offender Registry and our policy, therefore, blocks everyone in your household from using Nextdoor:
    https://nextdoor.com/member_agreement/

    We understand there are many people on the sex offender registries who do not pose a threat to their neighbors. Unfortunately, we have no way to reliably distinguish between those who do and those who do not. In addition, Nextdoor has partnerships with more than 500 police departments, city governments, and other public agencies, and they have made clear to us that a no exceptions policy with regard to the households of registered sex offenders is a necessary precondition for these partnerships.

    If the offender has since re-located, we’ll need to clear the hold on the address itself. The easiest way to resolve this is by speaking with your local Offender Registry agency, and explaining your current situation. They’ll be able to file the appropriate paperwork and start the process of clearing your address.

    Alternatively, we can also clear your hold by providing us with applicable documentation. This could be a recent purchase agreement, lease agreement, rental agreement, land deed, or writ from the offender agency in your area.

    Once your address is cleared, I can help you access to Nextdoor.
    Thanks,

    David
    Nextdoor

    • TS

      I have several issues with this letter David W of Nextdoor sent in reply.

      1) It is not up to Nextdoor to determine anything about any RC at any address. Others will do that for you if you know anything. That is what the “pros” are for when it comes to assessing an RCs risk, not yours. Take the word of the “pros”, not your fear mongering cowardly thought process. (The debate of pros is substantial on ACSOL, but is not the intent here)

      2) A “no exceptions policy” is required precondition for a partnership? If that is true, then that is A) government endorsement RCs are a risk no matter what their risk assessment is when they should be nonbiased (screw your liability thinking) and B) forced government speech onto you by making you say all RCs are a risk when you deny their application or the application of another person at the address without any substantiating information to say the RC is a risk. (Anyone remember the AZ sheriff’s deputy who said the campground should not be doing business with an RC but was merely there to inform them of the RC themselves? We all agreed any opinion on the RC by the deputy in uniform was unnecessary.)

      3) It is not the Nextdoor applicant’s responsibility to clear the address in the registry database at the registration entity once the RC has moved, but the registration entity’s responsibility do it as soon as the registry info changes (which we all know is subject to debate). If it is not fast enough, use the new paperwork, e.g. rental agreement, etc, not the registry office who won’t give two cents about your situation with Nextdoor.

    • Nondescript

      Nextdoor has “partnerships” with law enforcement? Sounds like a front for the NSA or Homeland Security for data collection like Facebook, but local. What has become of society that we should need an app to interact with our neighbors. Creepy.

    • New Person

      So you’re saying this is evidence for discrimination against registrants?

      Odd, I thought they said the registry didn’t pose a disability. Ya know… like presence and residency restrictions were once constitutional and not a disability… well, before it was recently deemed unconstitutional.

      1203.4 dismissal states, upon successful completion of probation,… he/she shall be removed from all penalties and disabilities from the conviction.

      Ca. Const, Art 1, Sec 7b. Equal Protection of Immunities. Either all get the immunity prescribed or no one gets the immunity. Yeah… that law actually exists in the Ca Constitution!

  6. It doesn’t work

    Facebook is a whole other ball game. Not allowed to join?? Then you can NOT comment to most news stories online. Huge, Huge, Huge Problem.

    • CR

      My libertarian side says Facebook is a private company and can exclude us if it desires. But my practical side wonders if public accommodation laws might apply, foreclosing that option on their part?

      • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

        Agreed, but that does not mean that regretting such a situation is not a legitimate expression of frustration. Indeed, the ubiquity of FaceBook does raise serious concerns as a company of overwhelming market dominance. However, I’m not inclined to use government to regulate that marketplace as, historically, these challenges tend to be exacerbated rather than ameliorated by state interference. After all, most actual monopolies have been state constructs and have survived in that form only through it’s protections (think ATandT). Invariably, or nearly so, market forces deflate defacto monopolies over time. They are temporary and we tend to look back and wonder why we were so concerned. Kinda like how Japan was going to dominate the world in the ’90s. Yeah, right.

        I think that FaceBook is becoming less popular with up-and-coming generations. Inherently decentralized, blockchain-like, social networks may well edge FaceBook towards irrelevance and as a “geezer” platform. Young people don’t want to be controlled and FaceBook is nothing if not controlling. They are diversifying into other areas where they will, no doubt, be a major market force but those will be much more competitive arenas, such as media streaming and content production and massive server farms for hire.

        In the meantime, online newspapers, etc. will be increasingly foolish to require FaceBook accounts. Huffington Post is one which requires it (although, who really cares?) but most decent papers do not. It probably won’t be sex offenders that will force a shift in their policies, but a lack of young people engaging with their content. That will be addressed very quickly as editors smarten up.

      • Will Allen

        I think Facebook or Nextdoor can exclude some U.S. citizens if they like but it should absolutely be against the law for any government entity or anything paid by government to use Facebook or Nextdoor. Government entities cannot be allowed to use resources or communicate via mechanisms that are not available to all taxpayers/citizens. The government entities that use them should be sued and forced to stop.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          And that right there my friend is exactly the premise for a lawsuit that I have been thinking about for years now. Maybe not necessarily lawsuit against the companies but definitely but government for banishing Citizens by adopting services that we are not allowed to use and we’ll never be able to be allowed to use due to the policies of those companies. I can’t help but think that this would be an automatic win with just the right arguments.

      • steve

        It’s not a private company. it’s publicly traded.

        • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

          Of course, you are correct. I was thinking in terms of “government vs. private” and not giving much thought to the distinction between publicly-traded vs. private corporations. FaceBook is, indeed, a publicly-traded corporation.

          • CR

            That distinction is generally not relevant in the context of public accommodation laws.

            Personally I have no interest in Facebook. I decided when MySpace and Facebook first came on the scene that I had no desire to live my life naked to the world. But I am interested in the application of public accommodation laws to companies that provide goods and services over the internet to the public, yet exclude sex offenders.

            • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

              There are people who argue that FaceBook, and other web-only services should be “public accommodations.” This is a contentious issue that is far from settled. Those people who believe that it should be a public accommodation, I would argue, are busybodies. The same sort of busybodies who demanded the Registry, residency restrictions for sex offenders, and the International Megan’s Law.

              When FaceBook determines that I can’t travel freely as a Registrant, that I register in person every year as a Registrant and that I can’t live within x number of feet of a school or playground or a nursery, just as the government does do, I’ll be all for demanding that they be regulated. That’s because I have priorities and demanding that FaceBook lets me participate on their network isn’t one of them.

              • CR

                I don’t want them to be treated as common carriers or public utilities, granted monopoly power, or quasi-governmental status. Mixing Free Enterprise (or business, generally) and State is as bad an idea as mixing Church and State, in my view.

                I was referring to the sort of public accommodation laws that many states enact to force commercial enterprises, whether privately owned or publicly traded, to serve all customers equally.

                Facebook is not a priority for me either. It has nothing to do with our fight.

              • AJ

                Include me in the camp that FB, Nextd00r, etc., don’t matter. There policies are but manifestations of what the Government is doing to us. Were there no provision in Federal law to supply NSOR data to online entities, these sites would be blind to and ignorant of who and is who is not a RC. Online sites try to create a perfected, sanitized world. It’s not like real life. After all, how many times have we all been standing next to another RC and not know it? How many times has an ex-con murderer chatted with us in line at the grocery store or a transit stop? How many times have you sat next to an embezzler at a concert, or in church, or any other public gathering? On a daily basis, we’re all blind to and ignorant of the skeletons our fellow humans carry. That’s life. Always has been and, if registries don’t continue to spread, always will be.

    • AJ

      Online media outlets are under no obligation to accept or publish your comments, just as print media are under no obligation to accept or publish your letters to the editor. Therefore, their using a system (FB) that you cannot access is irrelevant.

      • 4 Sensible Laws

        Irrelevant? I think not.

        Under your thinking, it would be fine if the postal service banned registrants from sending mail. In the old days, a newspaper might publish a letter to the editor sent by snail mail. It is the Constitutional right of any and all individuals to express themselves by sending a letter.

        The de facto method of ‘delivery’ of such communication especially to news sites has become Facebook. Most media outlets won’t even accept a mailed letter. Facebook, as gatekeeper, bans registrants from that same freedom of expression that used to be found by mailing a letter.

        As a ‘common carrier’ they need to be required to allow access. The power and ubiquitous nature of Facebook makes it more than just an online media outlet.

        I am less concerned with the rights of companies to make stupid exclusionary policies, than with the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

        • It doesn’t work

          All I know is, I can’t voice my opinion and wisdom to the comments portion of news stories concerning RC’s.. Almost Every news story concerning RC’s that is linked from this site (and all other sites) requires a Facebook account in order to join the discussion. So I am excluded. Weather it’s only “until” a new form of SOCIAL media is the norm is not the point I am arguing.

          • Will Allen

            So create a Facebook account. Or ten. Simple.

            • Nicholas Maietta

              All it takes is for somebody report that a sex offender is using the profile of a Facebook page and suddenly that page along with all of the comments you’ve written on various web sites that use the social networking plugin for commenting is poof gone. What a waste of time. Please be part of the solution not part of the problem. Telling people that they should just create a profile anyway against the terms of service is inadvisable and is a waste of valuable time. I recommend that people be part of a solution rather than part of the problem.

              • Will Allen

                I’ve had the same one for a decade and it works fine.

                Technologically, I think it would nearly impossible to go back and remove all comments made. That would practically require all comments to be hosted on Favebook storage. Maybe it works that way but I seriously doubt it.

                F Facebook. People should do everything they don’t want.

              • Will Allen

                Nicholas Maietta:

                When I replied to your comment yesterday, I was using a mobile phone and that interface is so awful that I rarely put much effort into it. But I’m using an actual computer now so …

                I would just like to reiterate that not only is it easy to create new Facebook accounts, I think that ALL people who are Registered who can do so legally (which is the vast majority) should create Facebook accounts and use them. It is quick and easy to create accounts just to comment on articles. Facebook deserves to have their terms of service ignored. They deserve to be attacked.

                Also, I didn’t notice yesterday but I noticed today that you called Registered people “sex offender”. No one should do that. It gives credence and credibility to the witch hunt, among other problems.

                Lastly, I’m intellectually interested in how the Facebook plugin works and exactly if and how, if a user account was deleted, would the comments that the person had made all over the place be affected. I’m interested but not to the point that I would look into myself. 🙂 But if you have any solid knowledge of it and wouldn’t mind spending a bit of time on it, would you let us all know about it?

                • Tim Moore

                  “Facebook deserves to have their terms of service ignored. They deserve to be attacked.”
                  I am tired of being told I can’t be involved in the dialogue or that I have to use the registrant correct public speaking “drinking fountains and bathrooms” created for my kind.
                  Enough said.

              • New Person

                @ Nicholas

                You wrote:
                ==========
                All it takes is for somebody report that a sex offender is using the profile of a Facebook page and suddenly that page along with all of the comments you’ve written on various web sites that use the social networking plugin for commenting is poof gone. What a waste of time.
                ==========

                Interesting. So why not flood FB with insinuations that certain profiles could be a sex offender? Like politicians and LEOs? Is it a crime to report that someone “might be a sex offender” under that account, which could be fake?

                Imagine all the stories that could drum up. IMO, that’s more direct to the people today than say a person saying they a new tenets to a home that formerly housed a registrant. Only so few people would care. But imagine the outrage if it hit them closer such as their FB account?

                Okay, I’m not saying anyone should do it, but that idea popped into my head when I read your comment and read an article on how FB is addictive to everyone as well as affect people’s lives.

          • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

            “almost Every news story concerning RC’s that is linked from this site (and all other sites) requires a Facebook account in order to join the discussion.”

            I don’t find that to be true and I comment on news sites every day. Requiring FB to make comments is a minority of news sites.

          • David

            Another option may be to email your comment to the editor of the newspaper explaining that, because you are a registered citizen and because of the restrictions imposed by Facebook, you are unable to post your important comment directly to their website. Be sure to mention that their readers may be interested in hearing comments from an individual who is directly affected by the proposed legislation or restrictions under discussion. Ask if they would be so kind as to post your comment on your behalf.

        • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

          The U.S. Postal Service is not a private (or publicly-traded) company. It is a quasi-governmental entity which does have monopoly status granted to it by government, unlike FaceBook. FaceBook has not yet been determined by government to be a ‘common-carrier.’ I would argue that it would be unwise to do so. When government does such things it tends to entrench a company as a monopoly rather than subject it to market forces which create its competitors.

          “I am less concerned with the rights of companies to make stupid exclusionary policies, than with the Constitutional rights of American citizens.”

          Companies are owned by citizens, mostly American, too. Our desire to dictate policy to them does not strip them of their rights, either. We don’t have an inalienable right to their property. This is a completely unnecessary diversion from the fundamental problem we face: being on the Registry. That must be the priority. Get rid of that and there is no issue with companies using the Registry tool which government provides them. Not being on FaceBook is not the biggest problem we face. Not by a longshot. We need to prioritize.

          • Tim Moore

            Why strive to take our place in the front of some stinking bus or eat at some hole in the wall private lunch counter, when what we need is an act of Congress to free us?
            Why? Because the latter is not possible until we pave the way with doing the former.

        • AJ

          @4 Sensible Laws:
          “It is the Constitutional right of any and all individuals to express themselves by sending a letter.”
          —-
          You are 100% correct, but only stating 50% of the “conversation.” Part of Free Speech is also the right not to listen.
          =====
          You are misusing the USPS in your example. The online parallel would be your ISP. Just like the USPS, your ISP will deliver your message to the recipient. And just like the USPS, the ISP may be told to “return to sender.” As well, FB has a First Amendment right of Free Speech, which in this case is the right not to listen. (That is long-established case law.)

          As you yourself say, “most media outlets won’t even accept a mailed letter.” That, too, is their right under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. You do have a right to speak; you do not have a right to force someone to listen to you, whether that’s FB, print media, or even your mom. FB chooses not to listen to you.
          =====
          “As a ‘common carrier’ they need to be required to allow access.”
          —–
          I won’t even address this, as you obviously have no idea what the legal definition of a common carrier is.
          =====
          “I am less concerned with the rights of companies to make stupid exclusionary policies, than with the Constitutional rights of American citizens.”
          —–
          You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding as to how the Constitution applies to, and protects, corporations. As good old Mitt Romney correctly said, “corporations are people, too.” In the eyes of the law, they are. Were they not, there is nothing to stop the Government from warrantless searches, compelling or barring speech, compelling self-incriminating testimony, taking assets without due process, etc., etc.

          • 4sensiblepolicies

            Yes, I understand the Libertarian stance of laissez-faire capitalism. That the freedom of corporations to do as they wish is sacrosanct and so forth. In most cases, that’s perfectly fine.

            But I do have a problem when a single corporation controls greater than 50% of the market share for a valuable communication tool such as public forum commenting and where that company has made an arbitrary rule about who can use that tool. [The latest stat I can find is from 2015 where facebook had a 53.1% market share for their commenting plugin technology. Likely even higher now.]

            I’m not going to get into semantics about what a common carrier is in relation to telecommunications. I am using the term loosely. Disneyland could be considered a ‘common carrier’ for amusement park rides. If Disneyland wants to ban me, I am perfectly fine with that. It is not important that I am able to ride a roller coaster.

            But in the marketplace of communications, where a company has a massive market share in a basic communications technology method and bans entire categories of individuals from it, I have a problem with that. And I am not talking about having the ability to post photos of my dog, but the mechanism in which a vast majority of the civilized world communicates with one another in the marketplace of ideas.

            Either the power of Facebook is being underestimated, or we’re just having a philosophical disagreement over how much power the corporation should have. That’s fine. Like others have said, there are bigger fish to fry. If the public registry were to go away it would more or less make this little disagreement a moot point.

            • Tim Moore

              Yes, the business model used in every discussion of rights and obligations. How overused. No business can exist solely as an autonomous entity. Every business owes its existence to the greater collective of consumers and to the other entities that provide the infrastructure and the general environment the business operates under. It is a fact. When you provide a means of communication for more than half the population, then you have a moral obligation to be fair and inclusive to the population. If you exclude registrants from the platform, you may be doing more harm than good. I am sure Facebook cares about appearing moral and not just arbitrary or discriminatory. They are saving the world, according to Zuckerberg. Right now banning registrants appears moral. A half century ago banning gays or communists or blacks or women was a moral thing to do.

            • David Kennerly, Exiled From FaceBook

              I have found that most publications that accept FaceBook signing-in also accept Twitter and, what is it, Linked-in or Discus. On top of those, many also allow you to sign-up directly with the publication. I’m not finding that many use only FB. Yes, some do. The Huffington Post is one of those that only accepts FB. They are stupid to do so since it limits their readers. I would predict that they, and most others, will change this parochial restraint.

            • AJ

              @4sensiblepolicies:
              ” I understand the Libertarian stance of laissez-faire capitalism.”
              —–
              Nowhere did I mention capitalism or libertarianism, nor were any of my words intended to address those topics. My point was the very structure of our society mandates that corporations must–and do–have Constitutional rights equal to a human being. You seem quite fine with abridging a corporation’s rights in the interest of yours. How is that any different than what we’re fighting?
              =====
              “But I do have a problem when a single corporation controls greater than 50% of the market share for a valuable communication tool such as public forum commenting and where that company has made an arbitrary rule about who can use that tool.”
              —–
              So their success means they should have to compromise their business model because it doesn’t meet someone’s liking? Would you hold this same position if FB charged users, instead of being free? Or would you then say they shouldn’t be allowed to charge people to engage in the “marketplace of ideas”? It is not FB’s fault that so many people want their product. They out-innovated the competition (mostly MySpace). So be it. At some point, FB may well be outdone by yet another company (David K.: I’m right you with you on this!)–and the investing and betting man that I am, I would say that other company will be Tencent Holdings (ticker: TCEHY).
              Let me ask you this question: at what market penetration percentage do you feel FB (or any business, regardless its size or presence) has to surrender its Constitutional rights? 50%? 49.99999%? 35%? 80%?
              As to the “arbitrary rule,” it would appear to be anything but that. I wasn’t present in the discussions that created this rule, but it does not appear to be arbitrary, random or whimsical. It’s black-and-white, firm policy from what I can tell. A business Fb or otherwise) will make rules and policies that it sees as beneficial–or at least that are not detrimental–to its success. That’s its constitutional–and yes, capitalistic–right. I, for one, wish it no other way, even if at times it means I suffer.
              =====
              “Disneyland could be considered a ‘common carrier’ for amusement park rides. If Disneyland wants to ban me, I am perfectly fine with that. It is not important that I am able to ride a roller coaster.”
              —–
              Oh I get it. The only ‘common carriers’ (whatever weird definition you’re using) that should not be allowed to ban you are those offering services you want. Talk about arbitrary! What if I’m okay with FB banning, but not D!sneyland? Do you get to trump me?
              =====
              “But in the marketplace of communications, where a company has a massive market share in a basic communications technology method and bans entire categories of individuals from it, I have a problem with that.”
              —–
              Again, you have a Constitutional right to speak. Period. You do not have a right to a certain size of audience, or any audience. You do not have a right to compel another entity–corporate or human–to assist you in exercising that right. That is what your base complaint is about FB, after all. Compelled speech is compelled speech.
              =====
              “Like others have said, there are bigger fish to fry. If the public registry were to go away it would more or less make this little disagreement a moot point.”
              —–
              Agreed.

              • David Kennerly, Exiled From FaceBook

                I would make the additional point that it is not just a matter of seeing corporations as “people” with rights for the purposes of this argument but that corporations are also owned by individuals who are, indeed, actual people. When people come together to jointly own a corporation they do not give up their rights as individuals, either. An assemblage of people is not a ‘non-person.’ In other words, it was a monopoly only because the government granted them that status.

                One other thing: IBM was once thought to be approaching monopoly-level power. That problem certainly took care of itself with the PC revolution. And AT&T stopped being a monopoly when the U.S. decided to open up the marketplace to other telecoms.

  7. NPS

    I have a NextDoor account. I haven’t had any problems, nor do I ever see posts about RCs.

    • CR

      Are you on the registry? If so, did you get your Nextdoor account before or after you were inducted into the Hall of Fame?

      • New Person

        NPS is on the registry, but isn’t available to be seen online. You cannot spot her on any map. This is due to either her offense was low level or due to being granted 1203.4.

        So that might be the difference.

        • NPS

          I’ve been registering since 2010. And yes to both scenarios. Offense was low-level, and it has been expunged. I was also never publicly listed.

          I’m guessing that might be the difference as well.

  8. hh

    I’ve had a Nextdoor account for years. I am a spouse and while our address isn’t listed online – I have been concerned for years that they will one day kick me off the site.

    We have used it for communicating with neighbors about lost pets , missing mail , lost keys , donations in the community , free furniture , any criminal activity in the neighborhood , last week there was a fire nearby.

    For there not to be serious legal ramifications for this company is beyond me. So now , I am also a threat and can not find out quickly if my neighborhood is on fire or my dog got out.

    Some days this just all feels hopeless.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      They actively scrape the public registry from the government website so by the time they get the information in their system it could already be out of date.

      They’re using a government database as a tool to banish people from using their service clearly in violation of 290.46. Remember that is a penal code violation an actual law.

  9. 1984

    NextDoor is nothing but a gossip site. It is used to talk about others who do not clic with the current bully group. A new group starts up well enough but degrades into hood control freaks.

    Really not missing much but no neighbor hood group should be able to ostracize any one within that groups boundaries.

  10. NxtD User

    1984, I have been active member on Nextdoor for several years. NextDoor is very popular in my neighborhood and it has allowed me to meet many of my neighbors (in real life) and to participate more fully in my community (again, in real life). I have had neighbors lend me tools, help me move furniture (with his pickup truck and his physical assistance, at no charge), and I’ve even been invited to join a very active local neighborhood association because my neighborhood does not have one.
    That said, I find it extremely disheartening that more registrants and their family members are not able to make use of this app as I have found it very helpful to successfully integrate in my community.

    (However, 1984, you are not alone in your negative opinion of NextDoor. I know folks who have quit NextDoor because they feel it is nothing more than a forum for nasty griping, comprised primarily of busybodies, nosy neighbors, and gentrifying hipsters.)

  11. David Kennerly, Exiled From FaceBook

    Well, isn’t this timely?

    “SHOULD FACEBOOK AND TWITTER BE REGULATED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT?”

    https://www.wired.com/story/should-facebook-and-twitter-be-regulated-under-the-first-amendment/

  12. Mike

    This company is partially responsible for my business going under. My wife tried to join and they said that an RC was living at my address and they would not let her join. Since that time, my business has suffer a loss of customers each month. I now have no way of supporting my family. The biggest problem is that I can’t even get in to find the info about me, so that I can sue for damages. Nextdoor isn’t the only reason why I lost my company, but they did assist in a big way.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *