NextDoor Says Users Who Share Posts with Reporters Could Be Kicked Off the Site(wweek.com)
wweek.com
NextDoor Says Users Who Share Posts with Reporters Could Be Kicked Off the Site
http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/10/08/nextdoor-says-users-who-share-posts-with-reporters-could-be-kicked-off-the-site/
317 comments
Wow, so many people all over the US with basically the same experience. For those interested in the history of this phenomenon, I strongly recommend the book "Sundown Towns":
https://www.amazon.com/Sundown-Towns-Hidden-Dimension-Americ...
My hazy understanding of American racism, which I now know to be wrong, was that it's always been getting better. Sure, slavery, but then the Civil War and an upward climb from there to the Civil Rights era and beyond. Except for the South, I thought.
It turns out the US had period after Reconstruction, know as the Nadir [1], when anti-black sentiment and action grew significantly. A wave of ethnic cleansing circa 1890-1920 led to a lot of all-white towns all over the country, ones where non-whites weren't allowed after dark. (Thus the title of the book.)
Chapter 11, "The Effect of Sundown Towns on Whites", talks a lot about how growing up in white-only areas leads white people to have enormously distorted perceptions of the dangers of black people. After reading that chapter, the RacistDoor phenomenon made a lot more sense to me.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=the...
https://www.amazon.com/Sundown-Towns-Hidden-Dimension-Americ...
My hazy understanding of American racism, which I now know to be wrong, was that it's always been getting better. Sure, slavery, but then the Civil War and an upward climb from there to the Civil Rights era and beyond. Except for the South, I thought.
It turns out the US had period after Reconstruction, know as the Nadir [1], when anti-black sentiment and action grew significantly. A wave of ethnic cleansing circa 1890-1920 led to a lot of all-white towns all over the country, ones where non-whites weren't allowed after dark. (Thus the title of the book.)
Chapter 11, "The Effect of Sundown Towns on Whites", talks a lot about how growing up in white-only areas leads white people to have enormously distorted perceptions of the dangers of black people. After reading that chapter, the RacistDoor phenomenon made a lot more sense to me.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=the...
This is a most excellent book about Reconstruction from firsthand accounts. This country would have been a far different place if the federal government had seen its responsibility through.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1886754.The_Trouble_They...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1886754.The_Trouble_They...
Also, Sundown Towns May have been at their most extreme in the South. But a look at Bay Area housing deeds from the 1940s will show that these neighborhoods were also explicitly seeking to keep non-whites out. Via explicit provisions that a house was not to be sold to or occupied by non-whites, unless they were the help.
Oh, perhaps I misspoke. The "sundown town" phenomenon was strongest outside the South. It happened all over the US.
It's hard to say if the civil war was even an upward climb. I've been reading a lot of Ta-Neshi Coates recently and he has opened my eyes. The civil war was started by the south in order to allow them to continue exploiting the labour of slaves. It seems those grievances haven't died.
Racism and, more importantly, white supremacy is an all-American concept which seems to be inextricably woven through the whole society.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/ - highly recommend this.
Racism and, more importantly, white supremacy is an all-American concept which seems to be inextricably woven through the whole society.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/ - highly recommend this.
My hair is starting to think about peppering itself with white, so I wasn't born yesterday, but I've spent about 1/3 of my adult life in Asia (primarily Japan), about 1/3 in the North of the US split between Yankee-land and the Rocky Mountain region, and about 1/3 in "the South".
In the Rocky Mountain region that I was in (and that I was born in), there was no history of slavery or any sort of modern diversity (it was all coal-miners, oil-drillers, and ranchers all the time), so I think we can take that one off the table. As we can Japan - because their issues with racism are different from ours (in the US).
That leaves good old Yankee-land and "the South". I am by birth and by culture, not a Southerner, but I will declare that if anyone sees more racism in Shreveport LA (for example) than they do in Chicago or even Terre Haute IN, that is a person that I would assert has never been to the south. I believe generally (based on a whole lotta anecdotal observation - some of which are turning my aging locks white), that Y2K Yankee-land is far more racist than Y2K Dixie. I don't know what it was like in 1960 - the race riots of Detroit in '68 - white flight to the suburbs - any of that. But I do believe that you are giving your own region a pass and the south a diss if you believe that they are more racist than you.
EDIT: And it isn't necessarily germane to my parent comment, but I see a lot of use of the phrase "dog-whistle" with no specifics. Can we see more specifics, so that the lesser aware of us can know what you are even talking about, or even get educated on what constitutes a "dog-whistle"?
In the Rocky Mountain region that I was in (and that I was born in), there was no history of slavery or any sort of modern diversity (it was all coal-miners, oil-drillers, and ranchers all the time), so I think we can take that one off the table. As we can Japan - because their issues with racism are different from ours (in the US).
That leaves good old Yankee-land and "the South". I am by birth and by culture, not a Southerner, but I will declare that if anyone sees more racism in Shreveport LA (for example) than they do in Chicago or even Terre Haute IN, that is a person that I would assert has never been to the south. I believe generally (based on a whole lotta anecdotal observation - some of which are turning my aging locks white), that Y2K Yankee-land is far more racist than Y2K Dixie. I don't know what it was like in 1960 - the race riots of Detroit in '68 - white flight to the suburbs - any of that. But I do believe that you are giving your own region a pass and the south a diss if you believe that they are more racist than you.
EDIT: And it isn't necessarily germane to my parent comment, but I see a lot of use of the phrase "dog-whistle" with no specifics. Can we see more specifics, so that the lesser aware of us can know what you are even talking about, or even get educated on what constitutes a "dog-whistle"?
> But I do believe that you are giving your own region a pass and the south a diss if you believe that they are more racist than you.
This was definitely a lesson I learned. I grew up in the midwest, and because racism of the Jim Crow sort was more blatant in the south, I thought we were relatively innocent. But I no longer think that.
As an example, I got a reproduction of the Negro Motorist Green Book. [1] It was a good exercise trying to imagine planning one of the road trips I've been on, but only staying at the small number of places that would accept black people.
I also learned from that book that there was one town in Michigan where well-off black people went to vacation: Idlewild. [2] It was created because black people in Chicago and Detroit were excluded from other vacation spots. I grew up not far from this place and nobody ever mentioned the history to me. Not accidental, I'm sure, that white people forgot all about it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idlewild,_Michigan
This was definitely a lesson I learned. I grew up in the midwest, and because racism of the Jim Crow sort was more blatant in the south, I thought we were relatively innocent. But I no longer think that.
As an example, I got a reproduction of the Negro Motorist Green Book. [1] It was a good exercise trying to imagine planning one of the road trips I've been on, but only staying at the small number of places that would accept black people.
I also learned from that book that there was one town in Michigan where well-off black people went to vacation: Idlewild. [2] It was created because black people in Chicago and Detroit were excluded from other vacation spots. I grew up not far from this place and nobody ever mentioned the history to me. Not accidental, I'm sure, that white people forgot all about it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idlewild,_Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
"Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup."
Lingua Franca had an interesting example recently - http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/09/28/the-s...
“The man should be in a pub on the banks of the Liffey.”
"Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup."
Lingua Franca had an interesting example recently - http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/09/28/the-s...
“The man should be in a pub on the banks of the Liffey.”
On the subject of recent struggle for equality - I strongly recommend watching "the black power mixtape 1967-1975":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Power_Mixtape_1967...
I believe it's available on Netflix.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Power_Mixtape_1967...
I believe it's available on Netflix.
> And it isn't necessarily germane to my parent comment, but I see a lot of use of the phrase "dog-whistle" with no specifics
Quick, let's do some free association and tell me the first skin color that comes to mind: thugs, real americans, inner-city youth, hard-working american, welfare queen, illegal immigrant.
Quick, let's do some free association and tell me the first skin color that comes to mind: thugs, real americans, inner-city youth, hard-working american, welfare queen, illegal immigrant.
You are telling me that "welfare queen" is supposed to make me think of white trailer trash in my neighborhood? Surely not. You are trying to tell me that the phrase is supposed to make me think in racist terms, right?
If so, then, alright, the only thing on your list that makes me think of somebody that might be darker beige than me (I assume this is where you are trying to go?) is illegal immigrant, where I do assume "Mexican born national". Is that racist, or just a recognition of how our borders go and the fact that few Canadians come to the US to pick our tomatoes?
If so, then, alright, the only thing on your list that makes me think of somebody that might be darker beige than me (I assume this is where you are trying to go?) is illegal immigrant, where I do assume "Mexican born national". Is that racist, or just a recognition of how our borders go and the fact that few Canadians come to the US to pick our tomatoes?
> You are trying to tell me that the phrase is supposed to make me think in racist terms, right?
No, "dog-whistle" terms seem mundane and can be played off as having the dictionary definition, but to certain people they have a very specific meaning. Your neighbor might say he wants to keep "thugs" out of your neighborhood, which you can naively infer to mean "violent criminals," but to other racists it's a synonym for "niggers." Or maybe you do know what he means, so you call him on it... and he asserts that it just means "violent criminals." That's what makes a dog-whistle.
No, "dog-whistle" terms seem mundane and can be played off as having the dictionary definition, but to certain people they have a very specific meaning. Your neighbor might say he wants to keep "thugs" out of your neighborhood, which you can naively infer to mean "violent criminals," but to other racists it's a synonym for "niggers." Or maybe you do know what he means, so you call him on it... and he asserts that it just means "violent criminals." That's what makes a dog-whistle.
Oh. I see what you mean.
I see enough references to the phrase (like: "everyone knows this is a dog-whistle for xyz") that I started to wonder if that phrase wasn't in itself, in certain contexts, a form of virtue-signaling itself. Maybe I was wrong.
Q: How is it that all the anti-racists know all the code-words that make up a dog whistle for racists? Isn't it supposed to be, by definition, unhearable?
I see enough references to the phrase (like: "everyone knows this is a dog-whistle for xyz") that I started to wonder if that phrase wasn't in itself, in certain contexts, a form of virtue-signaling itself. Maybe I was wrong.
Q: How is it that all the anti-racists know all the code-words that make up a dog whistle for racists? Isn't it supposed to be, by definition, unhearable?
I doubt we all know all of them. But they tend to persist for long periods, and so are easily discoverable by reverse engineering speeches. It helps that some people are quite explicit about it. Either in historical retrospect, as with the Atwater quote here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_.2...
Or with "saying the quiet parts loud", where people who aren't as good at dog whistling drift into being more explicit. Or people who are explicit get pushed into saying things where the racial connection is more easily denied. The Trump administration's Muslim ban is good example of that. They started out advocating for a ban with strong religious and racial components. When the public and the courts said no, they iterated to something less blatant. They will keep rinsing and repeating until something gets through.
Or with "saying the quiet parts loud", where people who aren't as good at dog whistling drift into being more explicit. Or people who are explicit get pushed into saying things where the racial connection is more easily denied. The Trump administration's Muslim ban is good example of that. They started out advocating for a ban with strong religious and racial components. When the public and the courts said no, they iterated to something less blatant. They will keep rinsing and repeating until something gets through.
I would guess that the answer is that not all anti-racists know all the code-words. Thug, urban, inner-city and so on are all known because they're the most used.
To contrast, I used to have a couple of friends who would use the term "friend" as a stand in for n* when talking about people in public. I figured it out from being around them and hearing how they stressed it differently than normal, but any random stranger wouldn't have picked up on it.
To contrast, I used to have a couple of friends who would use the term "friend" as a stand in for n* when talking about people in public. I figured it out from being around them and hearing how they stressed it differently than normal, but any random stranger wouldn't have picked up on it.
The same way we decode any phrase that has a coded meaning. I assume you can understand irony, jokes, and satire, dog whistle phrases are no different.
I left the country for a while, and when I got back, I was no good at picking those up either. But I do understand your point.(I think)
[deleted]
> You are trying to tell me that the phrase is supposed to make me think in racist terms, right?
No, I am saying the phrase is meant to be interpreted in a racial context by the target audience while passing off as non-racial. Non of the phrases I listed are racial by the dictionary definition.
The difference between a dog-whistle and a regular whistle is that dog-whistles are inaudible to humans and go unnoticed, hence the "dog-whistle" tag for such coded language.
No, I am saying the phrase is meant to be interpreted in a racial context by the target audience while passing off as non-racial. Non of the phrases I listed are racial by the dictionary definition.
The difference between a dog-whistle and a regular whistle is that dog-whistles are inaudible to humans and go unnoticed, hence the "dog-whistle" tag for such coded language.
Let's see...thugs=wall street(white). real Americans=cherokee(brown). hard-working american=Hispanic(brown). Welfare queen=goldman sacks(gold). Illegal immigrant=columbus(white).
It's not free association if you are telling me to think of a skin color while listing stereotypes.
Coates is unabashedly biased and not a great source.
Racism and, more importantly, white supremacy is an all-American concept
This is ridiculously narrow conception of slavery and racism. Slavery is neither "American" nor "white" - it's an insidious and evil institution that has been imposed on a wide number of people and races, even during the American/European slave period.
An even larger African slave trade existed in the Middle East and North Africa. Even the word "Slave" is derived from "Slav" - my people - who were enslaved by Spanish Muslims. In fact, slavery still exists and thrives in parts of Sudan and Benin today. Not the mention the massive amounts of slaves that existed in South East Asia or the fact that slavery was an established institution in the Americas much before Europeans came here.
There were more slaves in India than there were in the entire western-hemisphere. China had slavery as recently as 1949 (they didn't outlaw it until 1910) and was recently embroiled in a slave controversy in 2007! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_slave_scandal)
In fact, it's Western-European society that has largely been critical of slavery, as they were the first nations to outlaw it (Denmark and Britain), and have organized against Slavery while many countries around the world were still practicing slavery (see the 1926 Slavery Convention held by the League of Nations)
Racism and, more importantly, white supremacy is an all-American concept
This is ridiculously narrow conception of slavery and racism. Slavery is neither "American" nor "white" - it's an insidious and evil institution that has been imposed on a wide number of people and races, even during the American/European slave period.
An even larger African slave trade existed in the Middle East and North Africa. Even the word "Slave" is derived from "Slav" - my people - who were enslaved by Spanish Muslims. In fact, slavery still exists and thrives in parts of Sudan and Benin today. Not the mention the massive amounts of slaves that existed in South East Asia or the fact that slavery was an established institution in the Americas much before Europeans came here.
There were more slaves in India than there were in the entire western-hemisphere. China had slavery as recently as 1949 (they didn't outlaw it until 1910) and was recently embroiled in a slave controversy in 2007! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_slave_scandal)
In fact, it's Western-European society that has largely been critical of slavery, as they were the first nations to outlaw it (Denmark and Britain), and have organized against Slavery while many countries around the world were still practicing slavery (see the 1926 Slavery Convention held by the League of Nations)
You have done an excellent job responding to a point almost entirely unrelated to the one you quoted.
He was talking about white supremacy, not slavery. And the phrase "all-American concept" does not mean that America invented it. He means that it's intrinsic, pervasive.
Which is pretty obviously true. America was white supremacist from the get-go. If not, we wouldn't have needed the 15th amendment, which came circa a century late. We wouldn't have needed 8 different civil rights acts (so far). The notion of whiteness is something America helped create and is continually redefining so as to help maintain white supremacy.
He was talking about white supremacy, not slavery. And the phrase "all-American concept" does not mean that America invented it. He means that it's intrinsic, pervasive.
Which is pretty obviously true. America was white supremacist from the get-go. If not, we wouldn't have needed the 15th amendment, which came circa a century late. We wouldn't have needed 8 different civil rights acts (so far). The notion of whiteness is something America helped create and is continually redefining so as to help maintain white supremacy.
Thank you.
The other reply to you did a pretty good job of taking down your hand-wavy argument about slavery, so I want to pick up on your first sentence.
I'd urge you to reconsider the way you view sources and the media.
"Coates is unabashedly biased and not a great source."
This is a non-sequitur and a misdirection tactic commonly used by people who want to try and discredit arguments without actually achieving anything of the sort. Much like you've done.
"Bias" is not an issue. Legitimacy is. Can we trust Coates writing about race? The question really expands to, can we trust an erudite and eloquent black man with a lot of lived experience, to contextualize and write about that experience? I don't see why we shouldn't. I imagine both of us have much less to offer the debate than Coates, so why not trust Coates?
I'd urge you to reconsider the way you view sources and the media.
"Coates is unabashedly biased and not a great source."
This is a non-sequitur and a misdirection tactic commonly used by people who want to try and discredit arguments without actually achieving anything of the sort. Much like you've done.
"Bias" is not an issue. Legitimacy is. Can we trust Coates writing about race? The question really expands to, can we trust an erudite and eloquent black man with a lot of lived experience, to contextualize and write about that experience? I don't see why we shouldn't. I imagine both of us have much less to offer the debate than Coates, so why not trust Coates?
Or maybe America is actually far less racist than it was during the Civil War and opponents are magnifying what remains to try to make unjustifiable claims.
Can you cite any evidence or well-reasoned analysis to support this conjecture? The piece linked in the comment you replied to lays out a pretty rigorous case to the contrary.
So you want an entire rundown US history post-1865? If you want a social critique of the modern liberal "Euro-Critical" conception of racism and slavery, I'll refer you to Thomas Sowell's excellent collection of essays in "Black Rednecks and White Liberals"
Or maybe anonymous people on the internet are throwing out entirely unevidenced possible explanations in a attempt to cloud the issue.
Ta-Nehisi Coates is extremely racist.
Are you seriously disputing that being free is better than being a slave or is that just hyperbole?
Be reminded that the 13th amendment didn't completely end slavery; it permitted it "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," and that more black men are restrained by the "criminal justice" system today in the US than were enslaved prior in 1850.
"and that more black men are restrained by the "criminal justice" system today in the US than were enslaved prior in 1850."
Worth noting that the U.S. population has grown significantly since 1850. I'd be more interested in the relative numbers (e.g. the percentage of black men incarcerated today v. the percentage enslaved before 1850).
Worth noting that the U.S. population has grown significantly since 1850. I'd be more interested in the relative numbers (e.g. the percentage of black men incarcerated today v. the percentage enslaved before 1850).
It's true that rates of enslavement have decreased since the end of the Civil War. But it's disgusting that our common vernacular talks about an institution that ended over 150 years ago when in fact it is still very much alive and generating enormous profits for the people who choose to exploit it.
If you want straight-up hard numbers, I can't recommend any resource more then DrugWarFacts:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/race_prison
If you want straight-up hard numbers, I can't recommend any resource more then DrugWarFacts:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/race_prison
No.
I hear about racist behavior in NextDoor Seattle as well. The Stranger (local alt weekly publication) has covered it at least once before, as have some other publications. From what I gather, the situation is a microcosm of what we see on a national scale: people who live in neighborhoods with low racial diversity are irrationally afraid of people of color, and NextDoor is their platform of choice. If you don't live in Capitol Hill or Pioneer Square (which face issues of rapid gentrification and homelessness), the local crime stats show that you are vanishingly unlikely to be facing even property crime. Now I really wonder what NextDoor looks like in my (predominantly black, including African immigrants) neighborhood...
I'm sure The Stranger will have a field day if anyone actually gets kicked off because of this "don't share with the media" position. And if NextDoor think that media folks aren't already embedded, in every neighborhood group, so they can have access to the kinda-racist goings-on of the platform, they are surely mistaken!
I'm sure The Stranger will have a field day if anyone actually gets kicked off because of this "don't share with the media" position. And if NextDoor think that media folks aren't already embedded, in every neighborhood group, so they can have access to the kinda-racist goings-on of the platform, they are surely mistaken!
> If you don't live in Capitol Hill or Pioneer Square (which face
> issues of rapid gentrification and homelessness), the
> local crime stats show that you are vanishingly
> unlikely to be facing even property crime.
In the past five years:
- The strap was cut and a gas can was stolen out of the back of my truck, a week after I got it.
- A chair was stolen from our front porch.
- My wife's car was broken into and her ancient iPod stolen.
- Someone climbed our fence and was wandering around in our backyard before a neighbor scared them off.
We would have certainly had lots of packages stolen too, but we simply don't ship things to our house unless we know we will be home. In addition to those direct crimes against us, we've experienced fun things like:
- Countless RVs illegally parked all around the neighborhood.
- People leaving literal piles of trash behind when they relocate their RV
- People dumping their sewage waste on the road when they relocate their RV.
- RVs catching on fire.
- Someone shitting on the street.
- Another person shitting in our alley.
- A neighbor found a gun in their bushes.
- Needles left on the ground in our yard. (We taught the kids not to touch them.)
- Screaming fights in the middle of the night.
- Homeless people using the port-o-potty painters placed in our front yard. (We put a lock on it after that.)
Seattle has a very serious homeless/drug addict problem and it affects virtually every neighborhood. None of this has anything to do with race, of course, but property crime and the other knock-on effects caused by a large homeless heroin/meth addict population are rampant.
We saw something similar to this sin the brexit referendum areas with very little little migration and who also benefited from EU subsidies vote for brexit because of the dog whistles of the leave campaign.
Don’t even get me started on NextDoor, Seattle, Capitol Hill, and homelessness. Also, don’t forget that a lot of people from the stranger and CHS are Capitol Hill residents and undoubtedly see this content just by virtue of being our neighbors!
(also, if you happen to be a Capitol Hill resident, please consider kicking in $10/month to help support the CHS blog, which just officially restarted today: https://www.patreon.com/jseattle)
>>If you don't live in Capitol Hill or Pioneer Square (which face issues of rapid gentrification and homelessness), the local crime stats show that you are vanishingly unlikely to be facing even property crime. Now I really wonder what NextDoor looks like in my (predominantly black, including African immigrants) neighborhood...
This makes it sound like we live in the same area (Rainier Valley). Property crime is definitely a thing here and gun crime has been consistent - though limited - in the Columbia City area.
Pioneer Square is also a different animal since it is highly commercial and not residential.
Regardless, the Rainier Valley has plenty of crime. I've had my car stolen, my car broken into, and a townhome next to mine being burgled in the few years I've been down here.
We are, of course, undergoing rapid gentrification as well.
This makes it sound like we live in the same area (Rainier Valley). Property crime is definitely a thing here and gun crime has been consistent - though limited - in the Columbia City area.
Pioneer Square is also a different animal since it is highly commercial and not residential.
Regardless, the Rainier Valley has plenty of crime. I've had my car stolen, my car broken into, and a townhome next to mine being burgled in the few years I've been down here.
We are, of course, undergoing rapid gentrification as well.
imaginenore(2)
I live in the heart of silicon valley in a very diverse neighborhood. Indian, Jewish, Persian, Chinese, white, Muslim, ...
I wouldn't call it racism, but it is other-ism, and it comes from all corners. This person doesn't look like he belongs in our neighborhood -- often it's more about social economic / class -- what vehicle they're driving, how they're dressed, are they a race that doesn't typically live in our mostly diverse neighborhood.
We have a lot of burglaries and it just drives up the paranoia.
I wouldn't call it racism, but it is other-ism, and it comes from all corners. This person doesn't look like he belongs in our neighborhood -- often it's more about social economic / class -- what vehicle they're driving, how they're dressed, are they a race that doesn't typically live in our mostly diverse neighborhood.
We have a lot of burglaries and it just drives up the paranoia.
The amount of property crime in at least some parts of SV is pretty ridiculous. My most recent bike was stolen within a month of buying it, to replace another bike that lasted 3 months before being stolen. That was bought to replace a total beater, torture to ride, flat tires, etc. Also stolen, though I can't imagine why. Next Door is also full of posts about broken car windows and stuff stolen from the back seats. So it's understandable that people get a bit antsy about people that they doubt are locals.
I haven't noticed overt racism on ND as much as crotchetiness, though. A lot of complaints about the local ice cream truck, for example, and about the number of camper vans parked along certain roads that people are using as housing.
I haven't noticed overt racism on ND as much as crotchetiness, though. A lot of complaints about the local ice cream truck, for example, and about the number of camper vans parked along certain roads that people are using as housing.
Interesting, I've rode a bike during the six months I spent in Santa Clara & San Jose and never had it stolen.
However, I did notice that there were a lot of bike parking / bike racks that were awfully missdesigned/overengineered. There were racks that could be opened to put your bike in but many people did not know that so they locked their bike to the rack but when you opened the rack, you could simply slide the lock out. In many cases, the bike was only locked to the rack, which meant you could drive away with the bike without ever picking the lock.
I've made the same mistake for about two weeks, until I noticed that this retarded bike rack mechanism left my bike completely unprotected. Afterwards, I always checked other bikes and I frequently found others that you could just pick up and drive away with.
One of the best, if not the best, bike rack designs is this here: https://www.bikecitizens.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Good...
Very simple design, it can a whole lot of bikes and it's as secure as it can get.
However, I did notice that there were a lot of bike parking / bike racks that were awfully missdesigned/overengineered. There were racks that could be opened to put your bike in but many people did not know that so they locked their bike to the rack but when you opened the rack, you could simply slide the lock out. In many cases, the bike was only locked to the rack, which meant you could drive away with the bike without ever picking the lock.
I've made the same mistake for about two weeks, until I noticed that this retarded bike rack mechanism left my bike completely unprotected. Afterwards, I always checked other bikes and I frequently found others that you could just pick up and drive away with.
One of the best, if not the best, bike rack designs is this here: https://www.bikecitizens.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Good...
Very simple design, it can a whole lot of bikes and it's as secure as it can get.
Any idea why property crime is so high? Is it because SV is wealthy (on average) so more attractive for non-local thieves?
Most property crime is never solved because the police are stretched thin and they prioritize violent crime. San Jose is a very polarized city with wealthy, safe areas and some extremely sketchy unsafe areas where people get robbed at gunpoint at 2pm. The police have to focus on the crappy areas. One solution would be to split the city up so the residents are better served for their local needs.
My guess is that it's because there are very rich areas mixed in with relatively poorer areas, and they're easy to travel between. Also, bikes are in a sweet spot where they're valuable enough to make some money on, but not valuable enough for the police to spend any time on.
When asked that question to the SVPD, the response was, yes,
"Because you have nice stuff!"
...also combined with a lot of easy pickings: people who don't always lock their windows, don't lock their gates, ...
...also combined with a lot of easy pickings: people who don't always lock their windows, don't lock their gates, ...
or maybe police are under funded for the circumstances?
note I have no idea. just guessing at possibilities
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-offi...
note I have no idea. just guessing at possibilities
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-offi...
>often it's more about social economic / class -- what vehicle they're driving, how they're dressed, are they a race that doesn't typically live in our mostly diverse neighborhood.
This. They hate "poor white trash" just as much.
This. They hate "poor white trash" just as much.
My Indian friends are the most racist people I know. It’s all they talk and think about. That was one of the most surprising things to me coming from the South (where I did occasionally come across racists but they were usually excluded socially because of their views, unlike PoC Bay Area residents, who get a blank check to be racist).
This shouldn't be surprising because despite what you are told day-in-day-out by the media, Americans, and Western European society in general, are extremely progressive on race relations, especially compared to other societies around the world.
I find that interesting, because I live in South Texas and I don't really see any racist posts in my neighborhood. Mostly it's just people complaining about people's car alarms going off at night and reporting when package thefts occur. It's pretty low traffic, in general, honestly. I maybe look at it once a month and review all the prior threads for the month.
Same experience here, also in Texas. Nothing racist at all, just dog-got-out and other harmless posts of the like. Occasional political chatter, but not unreasonable.
I'm not sure why that deserves a "to be fair." I see blatant racism in my Nextdoor in DC too. There's a problem here, but it's not caused by reporters.
I see quite of it here in Portland, Oregon as well. Certianly more “those people” are a problem posts than I would expect. There is definitely a lot more ire directed at the homeless, but the (apparent) insularity of NextDoor appears to encourage people to show their true colors.
Time to start exposing them.
I live in Seattle, and I can tell you from the few times I've been on NextDoor, even in a blue city like ours, I was surprised at how racist people still are, albeit subtly.
It is mostly a story perpetuated in the press that racism is a Southern thing. Similar to how stories of dog fighting were the South. It is one part stereotype and one part comfort, comfort in the idea that where you live; outside of the South; possibly cannot have similar issues.
Tacoma here. I kept getting hand typed notes in my mailbox for a few months to join NextDoor. Looked it up once and never went back. Too many dogwhistle posts about "undesirable youth" causing all the city's problems.
Why don't you call it out? Like it seems that this stuff gets going because nobody ever raises their hand and says something, so the people who are left just get into a feedback loop.
> Why don't you call it out?
Because all that will do is create high school style drama about who's more correct.
But if you want to get into an eternal hate match between your neighbors full of passive aggressive backstabbing, there is no quicker way than to call them out on their causal racism.
Because all that will do is create high school style drama about who's more correct.
But if you want to get into an eternal hate match between your neighbors full of passive aggressive backstabbing, there is no quicker way than to call them out on their causal racism.
This sounds exactly like the kind of app I hate. Do you think it was your neighbors who were giving you the notes?
> Do you think it was your neighbors who were giving you the notes?
Not my direct neighbors, but definitely someone a few streets over. I actually thought that their house was vacant until I received the letter.
Not my direct neighbors, but definitely someone a few streets over. I actually thought that their house was vacant until I received the letter.
There is far more racism in Seattle than southern cities and Midwestern cities that I've lived in. I perhaps have a different perspective on it since I am a POC, but that is certainly my feeling on it all.
Yeah, there's a lot of subtle racism. But there's also some pretty overt stuff. Look no further than our local conversations about homelessness and housing affordability, right?
No need to change any addresses either. Just pick up one of those visa or Amex gift cards. They let you put anything you’d like in the name and address fields when you’re completing a purchase.
I assume NextDoor is doing an AVS check and expecting a match.
The cards you mention fail AVS checks, but with a 'U' code for 'UNAVAILABLE'. Many online sellers will let those sales through. NextDoor likely does not.
You can see some of the possible AVS responses here: https://www.chasepaymentech.com/address_verification_service...
The cards you mention fail AVS checks, but with a 'U' code for 'UNAVAILABLE'. Many online sellers will let those sales through. NextDoor likely does not.
You can see some of the possible AVS responses here: https://www.chasepaymentech.com/address_verification_service...
You can register some gift/prepaid cards online with the issuer, and enter an address. Then it can pass AVS checks.
Privacy.com gives you one-time cards that, I think, provide a positive response for any address.
I switched around a couple of times by changing the address on my Square Cash card
> To be fair, at least in the Southeastern US, NextDoor is more...RacistDoor.
Man, I guess I am not the only one who noticed this. And I live in Sacramento, CA. I am guessing its 10x worse else where.
Man, I guess I am not the only one who noticed this. And I live in Sacramento, CA. I am guessing its 10x worse else where.
I haven't experienced it, but I've heard the same of other neighborhoods in San Francisco.
It's not blatantly racist stuff.. It's random things like "hispanic male in hoodie walking around neighborhood, doesn't look like he belongs"...
The first few times you see it, you think, ok whatever, people are just being overly cautious. You might even think it was useful, and you could see yourself reporting such things.
But after like the 10th time you see postings like that, you really start to wonder if this is what racial profiling looks like in practice.
The first few times you see it, you think, ok whatever, people are just being overly cautious. You might even think it was useful, and you could see yourself reporting such things.
But after like the 10th time you see postings like that, you really start to wonder if this is what racial profiling looks like in practice.
Just out of curiosity, how should a resident describe a person that doesn't look like they should be wandering around the neighborhood?
I mean, I know most people in my neighborhood and if I saw a random person walking around I'd certainly keep an eye on them. It's technically a public road so they have every right to be there, but it's a cul-de-sac and super uncommon for non-residents to be walking in our neighborhood so it 100% stands out, regardless of skin tone.
I mean, I know most people in my neighborhood and if I saw a random person walking around I'd certainly keep an eye on them. It's technically a public road so they have every right to be there, but it's a cul-de-sac and super uncommon for non-residents to be walking in our neighborhood so it 100% stands out, regardless of skin tone.
Maybe not pay attention at all unless something actually happens. You have no clue what that person is doing and it's not your business.
Nonsense, if you’re an engaged resident it is somewhat your business.
My family’s safety is more important than some rando’s feelings of acceptance and comfort.
My family’s safety is more important than some rando’s feelings of acceptance and comfort.
I think domestication has taken the heightened situational awareness out of humans a little too much unfortunately. The fact that some people think it's wrong to be concerned about an abnormal presence near your domicile is disheartening.
I think it takes an encounter or two with dangerous people to be reminded of that. My luck with real sociopaths and whack jobs has been poor over the past few years and it’s really put things into perspective. Not everyone abides by the moral or ethical codes we take for granted in society.
Abnormal for you maybe. But you aren't always paying attention, that's not your job. Maybe it's someone going for a walk, maybe it's a neighbors friend. You just don't know.
So what are you going to do to someone walking through a neighborhood? Call the cops because someone is walking through a definitely public place?
If you witness an assault, yea go ahead.
If you witness an assault, yea go ahead.
Most people live in a tiny circle revolving around their place of living and their work-place. If we probably tracked every single human in a city, I would hypothesize that we'd find that a high-percentage of those that regularly "stray" out of those two areas in odd times, into places that are drastically different socio-economically than their own, are actually committing crimes.
It's quite unfortunate that we've gotten to a point whereby some rather nebulous terms such as "freedom of movement" ha gotten in the way of crime-prevention.
For all we know, keeping people from committing crimes by removing their ability to would actually keep them honest and force them to improve their lot. Unfortunately, it's an uncomfortable conversation that touches on police-state territory, so we probably won't have it in the public eye any time soon.
It's quite unfortunate that we've gotten to a point whereby some rather nebulous terms such as "freedom of movement" ha gotten in the way of crime-prevention.
For all we know, keeping people from committing crimes by removing their ability to would actually keep them honest and force them to improve their lot. Unfortunately, it's an uncomfortable conversation that touches on police-state territory, so we probably won't have it in the public eye any time soon.
It's also quite unfortunate that you think that would solve anything. It's also quite unfortunate that you are only thinking of one type of crime in your assessment.
It's unfortunate that you don't even want to consider if it might solve anything. That's why we can't have nice things, and we're forced to live in a broken society with broken homes spanning generations.
If they only report hispanics or other non-whites walking around as "not belonging", then yes, skin tone is playing a part.
If they only report strangers that don't match their own skin tone (but not strangers that match their skin tone), then I agree that it's quite likely racism.
I was just curious how someone would address the issue in the way least likely to be misinterpreted as racist really. I mean, if the only strangers that show up in the neighborhood are from a different group than you and you alert on all of them, can you really tell if the person is racist? You can't simple say "mind your own business" to those people. They are just being alert to things going on in their neighborhood, which is prudent. Perhaps they are a little over-zealous, but that's arguably better than letting your neighbor get robbed.
All of the above is assuming the person isn't actually racist. If they are then screw them, they should be ashamed of themselves and ostracization is a perfectly valid response to their behavior.
I was just curious how someone would address the issue in the way least likely to be misinterpreted as racist really. I mean, if the only strangers that show up in the neighborhood are from a different group than you and you alert on all of them, can you really tell if the person is racist? You can't simple say "mind your own business" to those people. They are just being alert to things going on in their neighborhood, which is prudent. Perhaps they are a little over-zealous, but that's arguably better than letting your neighbor get robbed.
All of the above is assuming the person isn't actually racist. If they are then screw them, they should be ashamed of themselves and ostracization is a perfectly valid response to their behavior.
I understand your point. And in my post I mentioned that I could see myself making that type of posts. However, it comes down to how you describe the scenario and how your assessment was made.
There are lots of people on nextdoor who report things like "a black guy was walking down our street looking into parked cars, he ran away when I opened my door", or "I saw an asian guy digging in my neighbor's recycling bin, I reported him to the police", etc.....
I don't think there's anything wrong with that type of description. I find it very helpful.
I think if you or I were to report something to NextDoor, that's probably what we would do. We would carefully observe, report what we observe, and give reasons for why we think something's off. In fact, you did that in your post by mentioning your "cul-de-sac" and explaining your situation.
What makes me uncomfortable is when I see posts that make no effort to describe the problem, and just go straight to describing the suspect. That to me is an indicator of bias.
There are lots of people on nextdoor who report things like "a black guy was walking down our street looking into parked cars, he ran away when I opened my door", or "I saw an asian guy digging in my neighbor's recycling bin, I reported him to the police", etc.....
I don't think there's anything wrong with that type of description. I find it very helpful.
I think if you or I were to report something to NextDoor, that's probably what we would do. We would carefully observe, report what we observe, and give reasons for why we think something's off. In fact, you did that in your post by mentioning your "cul-de-sac" and explaining your situation.
What makes me uncomfortable is when I see posts that make no effort to describe the problem, and just go straight to describing the suspect. That to me is an indicator of bias.
Yes, thus is basically what I've heard described
The nicer the cars in the driveways the worse it is. The wealthier you are the more time you have to care about petty stuff.
It was kind of crazy how many times people on San Diego (of all places!) NextDoor would talk about how they "caught" a "hispanic male" looking in cars, or some other offense. This in a place where people with an appearance common to folks from Mexico and central America (note that "hispanic" isn't an appearance, but whatever) make up a huge percentage of the general population.
It is kind of crazy how often you can witness a person (of any color) walking down an alley in early AM hours in San Diego while looking in car windows with a light and checking door handles. I would give an unknown person one address number as not something to report, giving them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they live there. But then seeing them continue on to the next apartment carport, then the next, then the next...
I'm sure there are racist idiots posting false stories or such, but that issue you described IS very common. Talk to your region's SDPD Community Liaison about the types of crimes and their occurrence numbers. SDPD will usually be able to give you a good comment on the amount of calls about a certain crime vs the actual number of times they make an arrest for a certain crime.
I'm sure there are racist idiots posting false stories or such, but that issue you described IS very common. Talk to your region's SDPD Community Liaison about the types of crimes and their occurrence numbers. SDPD will usually be able to give you a good comment on the amount of calls about a certain crime vs the actual number of times they make an arrest for a certain crime.
Not saying that you’re right or wrong, but I’m pretty sure you can’t see the entire South-Eastern US from your Nextdoor login.
Are you speaking up when you see these examples of racism?
(Seriously with the downvotes?)
Are you speaking up when you see these examples of racism?
(Seriously with the downvotes?)
I have not noticed any racist stuff on nextdoor, I think the leads in the groups I have participated in would remove these kinds of messages and their participants.
I have been/am involved in three communities, all in the southeast: 1. An upper class neighborhood in a city where whites are a (slim) minority 2. A working class neighborhood in the same city where I seemed to be the only white guy 3. A rural neighborhood where almost everyone is white
I am surprised that people would write such things today, when the perils of doing so with your own name are widely understood.
I have been/am involved in three communities, all in the southeast: 1. An upper class neighborhood in a city where whites are a (slim) minority 2. A working class neighborhood in the same city where I seemed to be the only white guy 3. A rural neighborhood where almost everyone is white
I am surprised that people would write such things today, when the perils of doing so with your own name are widely understood.
The penalty for making publicly racist statements is decreasing, IMO; people are still being picked off at the leading edge when they really do go unambiguously too far, but there's an entire industry of thinly disguised racist news media.
oh you mean like this in the San Francisco Bay Area from two years ago
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/racial-profiling-via-...
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/racial-profiling-via-...
Yeah or these follow up responses by the company to the problem https://www.wired.com/2016/08/nextdoor-breaks-sacred-design-...
Yeah that is a lovely PR piece, and i watched nextdoor implement that "fix" wired was very generous with the breaking sacred design rule headline, the site wasn't exactly web 3.0 from the beginning and i think that was the point.
It's primary audience appears to be "homeowners" (owners from 1-50 years they do not seem to care) who might want to sell their home or are interested in service for their home.
So two years later and I personally still see the almost identical "those people" posts across all of San Francisco. A valiant effort but without serious moderation it is meaningless.
At a certain point mods in the nextdoor community need to either ban people completely which would cuts away at their fantasy ethos or shadow ban people which basically is the same result.
good fences make great neighbors
It's primary audience appears to be "homeowners" (owners from 1-50 years they do not seem to care) who might want to sell their home or are interested in service for their home.
So two years later and I personally still see the almost identical "those people" posts across all of San Francisco. A valiant effort but without serious moderation it is meaningless.
At a certain point mods in the nextdoor community need to either ban people completely which would cuts away at their fantasy ethos or shadow ban people which basically is the same result.
good fences make great neighbors
This is sad to hear but not suprising given my experience reading online local news comments. I live in Mount Airy Philly, a racially mixed and very liberal neighborhood. On my NextDoor racial descriptions usually have to be solicited. It seems that my neighbors are very sensitive to profiling, or at least to being perceived as someone who profiles and I've seen Caucasian members "check" other Caucasian members for leading down that path. That being said the "suspect" is often times AA, but the complaints are always legitimate so as a AA I'm rarely offended.
I love that you’ve been downvoted for expressing the “wrong” opinion. /s
Most “neighborhood” forums have a ton of racism. Try the City-Data forums for Baltimore, or DC Urban Moms. The threads about, say, the racial demographics of the elementary school in some genitrifting neighborhood can get pretty awful.
There's a simmering issue underlying this that in only a matter of time will surface in a court battle: if racist attitudes are common in the general population, does making a story out of it (presuming there is no related court filing about illegal discrimination or anything similar) violate a person's "non-notability" status?
I like the app for the classifieds, and event posts and updates directly from the city and police department. However there are a lot of older generation posters that complain about everything and anything. Lately in my neighborhood the older generation have been outraged about the new recycling bins and rules. How dare they expect us to sort our own garbage! Actually they are outraged about any change...
They need to own up to the fact it is community they have the power to manage. If they want to govern through censorship then they're going to bother a significant amount of people and turn off another portion who don't see them properly supporting and facilitating a safe online space.
Is racial profiling actually considered racism?
I thought it was its own category because it's not a form of prejudice, but instead refers to the use of race based statistical reasoning.
I'd rather we keep the line drawn. and not muddy the racist card.
e.g. RacialProfilistDoor is more apt
I thought it was its own category because it's not a form of prejudice, but instead refers to the use of race based statistical reasoning.
I'd rather we keep the line drawn. and not muddy the racist card.
e.g. RacialProfilistDoor is more apt
It’s true that making decisions based on statistical risk is different from people acting out of hate. Indeed, it can be seductive to people with a basic understandinge of math that data driven decisions should be more fair minded.
But the devil is in the details. It’s famously easy to make bad decisions based on “flawless” calculations that simply don’t interpret data right or don’t take all factors into consideration. Statistics is known for this peril even in mundane business situations, but with problems that are controversial, and affect people’s lives, it’s even more perilous.
Here basic profiling would tell me you are male, correct? Did you know people like you commit 99% of murder and violent crime? Can you really blame me for crossing to the other side of the street if I see you walking toward me at night?
But the devil is in the details. It’s famously easy to make bad decisions based on “flawless” calculations that simply don’t interpret data right or don’t take all factors into consideration. Statistics is known for this peril even in mundane business situations, but with problems that are controversial, and affect people’s lives, it’s even more perilous.
Here basic profiling would tell me you are male, correct? Did you know people like you commit 99% of murder and violent crime? Can you really blame me for crossing to the other side of the street if I see you walking toward me at night?
> Here basic profiling would tell me you are male, correct? Did you know people like you commit 99% of murder and violent crime?
In case anyone was curious, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics believes that men are responsible for ~90% of murders and ~80% of violent crime (in the US).
In case anyone was curious, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics believes that men are responsible for ~90% of murders and ~80% of violent crime (in the US).
Thank you for the correction. I knew it was way up there but was just trying to recall off the top of my head.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to profile men, especially based on whatever signals they’re sending via dress/appearance, gait, etc.
Cross the street! Safety is more important than a stranger’s feelings of acceptance and comfort. This is common sense.
Cross the street! Safety is more important than a stranger’s feelings of acceptance and comfort. This is common sense.
Oh, all these people on NextDoor have carefully built validated statistical models based on clean, individually gathered data? Tell me more.
Because if not, this sounds like a fancy way to dress up racial prejudice.
Because if not, this sounds like a fancy way to dress up racial prejudice.
Yes they do. And it's even hardware accelerated in the brain! Racial profiling is one word for a special case, but the general case is just refereed to as learning - e.g. using personal brain-stored data from the past to make future predictions.
That's mostly ridiculous. If the data they're using from their past is on past crime that they have experienced, that might be fine. But the data I can find shows that violent crime that white people experience is mostly by other white people. And regardless, most people don't experience enough crime to form statistically valid inferences about who criminals are.
And even if they did, it would be dumb statistics. If I am murdered, it's 80% likely it'll be by a white guy. But that doesn't mean I should just assume all the white guys I meet are probable murderers. It doesn't even mean that I should take precautions around white guys, however dangerous they are to me, because the odds of a given white dude being a murderer is still very low.
As studies and Nextdoor's experience show, people will racially profile strangers entirely in absence of actual experience. Indeed, as I mentioned elsewhere, people from all-white areas are much more likely to profile, and to do it in exaggerated, hysterical fashion, precisely because they have no real basis to form useful inferences about an entire race of people. Racial profiling is mostly just dressed-up tribalist nonsense. And it has been used in the US to kill thousands of black people [1], at least.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
And even if they did, it would be dumb statistics. If I am murdered, it's 80% likely it'll be by a white guy. But that doesn't mean I should just assume all the white guys I meet are probable murderers. It doesn't even mean that I should take precautions around white guys, however dangerous they are to me, because the odds of a given white dude being a murderer is still very low.
As studies and Nextdoor's experience show, people will racially profile strangers entirely in absence of actual experience. Indeed, as I mentioned elsewhere, people from all-white areas are much more likely to profile, and to do it in exaggerated, hysterical fashion, precisely because they have no real basis to form useful inferences about an entire race of people. Racial profiling is mostly just dressed-up tribalist nonsense. And it has been used in the US to kill thousands of black people [1], at least.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
>Oh, all these people on NextDoor have carefully built validated statistical models based on clean, individually gathered data?
Take a look at FBI crime statistics by race and gender sometime. Witnessing a Asian woman committing a property or violent crime is statistically speaking like winning the lottery. If I was to assess the risk of an Asian woman walking down the street I'd rate the risk as lower than any other demographic group, is that racist and sexist?
Take a look at FBI crime statistics by race and gender sometime. Witnessing a Asian woman committing a property or violent crime is statistically speaking like winning the lottery. If I was to assess the risk of an Asian woman walking down the street I'd rate the risk as lower than any other demographic group, is that racist and sexist?
Oh, of course your name has "kek" in it.
If you treat people negatively because of their race, yes, that's racist.
If you treat people negatively because of their race, yes, that's racist.
So I can assume that you don't support affirmative action?
Why don't we just skip your half-assed white supremacist gotchas.
I'm Chinese. You seem to be a victim of your own prejudice.
I look forward to you proving that. My account's tied to my real identity, so step right up and do yours.
Elderly people are probably just as scarce in some of those statistics.
Racial profiling is 100% prejudice -- pre-judgment based on race alone.
There isn't a universal definition of racism, but racial profiling is certainly a historical tool of racists and racist policies.
There isn't a universal definition of racism, but racial profiling is certainly a historical tool of racists and racist policies.
Being harassed for no reason except the color of your skin is equally harmful whether it's down to white-supremacist politics or cold statistics.
hasenj(5)
That seems to me to fall well within the umbra of "Discrimination or prejudice based on race."
http://www.wordnik.com/words/racism
http://www.wordnik.com/words/racism
Sure, but definitions aside, are we fine with it? I'm fine with it. I think there is a perfectly reasonable distinction between being cautious and wary of individuals based on statistical evidence (including race/gender/age/dress/demeanor), and treating them differently once you start interacting with them.
I.e. Every individual I talk to has a fresh, blank slate with me. Stereotypes and "profiling" only really apply until you start getting a concrete instance of said group, and deal with them in getting "fresh" data that is unique to them.
I.e. Every individual I talk to has a fresh, blank slate with me. Stereotypes and "profiling" only really apply until you start getting a concrete instance of said group, and deal with them in getting "fresh" data that is unique to them.
I wonder if they could lean into that and show people a different way. The last time this came up they had some tools for helping people recognize they were being racist and think about it.
“Our ML system has detected wrong think. Did you know you are being racist? Bad serf!”
I generally refer to this as the 'We reject being civilized' argument :-).
Civilization in this context being the set of rules and norms that impose restrictions on our behavior in exchange for a improvements in the quality of life for everyone in the community. One of the challenges of parenting is trying to explain to your children "why" they should follow the rules in terms they can understand and relate to.
Civilization in this context being the set of rules and norms that impose restrictions on our behavior in exchange for a improvements in the quality of life for everyone in the community. One of the challenges of parenting is trying to explain to your children "why" they should follow the rules in terms they can understand and relate to.
I don't think any company should take on the role of parenting (presumably) grown ups, or worse yet children. I don't appreciate the idea that because an individual parent might teach their children morals and the social contract (nevermind the freedom individual parents have to raise their children according to their own subtle ethical codes) that it would be appropriate for large internet services to do the same for their users with machine learning.
It should remain with the people to argue with each other and change their views, not with black box magic woven into the communication medium.
It should remain with the people to argue with each other and change their views, not with black box magic woven into the communication medium.
Business are groups of people. They may collectively feel they can work together to advance society in a positive direction; not every business wants to be amoral and purely capitalist. As long as they’re not breaking the law, that seems to me to be a good thing.
methodin(1)
To me it sounds like an old story; content host doesn't want the obligation to moderate & review the vast quantities of content posted to their site. If the content never makes it to reporters, nobody will be plastering their name on the front of the paper demanding NextDoor hire an army of content moderators.
Interesting. I am a NextDoor Lead and recently had a user throw a fit over another user who had committed the unforgivable sin of correcting his grammar. He was demanding he be banned.
I told him essentially he needed to calm down and avoid conflict (this user is always getting into fights) in addition to that it wasn't in my power as lead to ban people. He said I was being "very unprofessional" and threatened to go to the local newspaper about how we weren't taking his reports seriously - as if they'd care. I explained that I don't work for NextDoor, I'm just one of his neighbors with slightly more power than him.
He told me to "never contact him again" lol. OK. Good deal.
Anyway, I thought that struck kind of close to this.
I told him essentially he needed to calm down and avoid conflict (this user is always getting into fights) in addition to that it wasn't in my power as lead to ban people. He said I was being "very unprofessional" and threatened to go to the local newspaper about how we weren't taking his reports seriously - as if they'd care. I explained that I don't work for NextDoor, I'm just one of his neighbors with slightly more power than him.
He told me to "never contact him again" lol. OK. Good deal.
Anyway, I thought that struck kind of close to this.
> He was demanding he be banned banned.
They are ban happy there! I got banned for calling someone a NIMBY because they were protesting a stop sign at an intersection two separate pedestrians got hit at because "it fostered increased traffic and urbanization."
They are ban happy there! I got banned for calling someone a NIMBY because they were protesting a stop sign at an intersection two separate pedestrians got hit at because "it fostered increased traffic and urbanization."
Nextdoor forums sound like never-ending HOA meetings.
And they attract the kind of people who want to be on the HOA Board.
Much like some people suggest that we should choose politicians at random, and that merely wanting to be one should exclude you from being one, the same should be said for HOA Boards. The kind of people who relish that "authority" are the last people who should have it.
Much like some people suggest that we should choose politicians at random, and that merely wanting to be one should exclude you from being one, the same should be said for HOA Boards. The kind of people who relish that "authority" are the last people who should have it.
They are. Just a lot more racist due to the (perceived) anonymity.
Anonymity? Everyone’s real name is verified...
right... "verified"
there's definitely no way to get a pre-paid visa / giftcard and set an address to it to use as verification for next-door
edit: next door recently asked it's own members to verify their neighbors... because that's always reliable
there's definitely no way to get a pre-paid visa / giftcard and set an address to it to use as verification for next-door
edit: next door recently asked it's own members to verify their neighbors... because that's always reliable
Don't know why you're being downvoted. I joined with a fake name just to read about what's going on and figured there was no reason to use my real name there.
This is the perfect summary. That's why I unsubscribed from all notifications but for emergencies. The amount of whining in my neighborhood is ridiculous. I imagine it's the same everywhere.
Same with Facebook community groups...
I've never seen anyone banned for mild name calling, but it's certainly against the rules and would get the comment removed. I suspect you had other reports in your history.
Calling people names, even if accurate, is corrosive to civil discussion. IMHO you deserve to be banned for that.
People who are that vulnerable to words shouldn't be given the power to ban. What's 'civil' to you is utterly rude to many Asian cultures.
Oh, bless your little heart, as we say in the South.
“But... but... my delicate fee-fees”
That only ever foster user creativity as they probe the bannable limit
How does a stop sign increase trafic
It increases the perception of traffic. You're more likely to notice a car stopped by stop sign and hear engines revving back up.
Interesting point I hadn't thought of that
The sign will increase the evidence of traffic by making cars stop and start. It will, on introduction, give rise to some non-adult acting out by people who find the existence of the new stop sign frustrating.
LOL. this sounds like such typical nextdoor people, it's funny.
This is timely for our community in Topanga, CA (between Malibu and Santa Monica). We've got an ongoing issue with an Internet provider where about 10% of packets are dropped. Nextdoor became a rallying point for hundreds of customers who have been dealing with 'slow web pages' for months. Nextdoor is at its best in these moments!
But, we need to be sharing what people are saying with the press as one of our next steps. I noticed this problem with ND so we started blogging about the issues separately and quoting folks without identifying details in Medium, so that the press could quote Medium instead of Nextdoor. (edit: https://twitter.com/topangafrontier is the best summary link)
But, we need to be sharing what people are saying with the press as one of our next steps. I noticed this problem with ND so we started blogging about the issues separately and quoting folks without identifying details in Medium, so that the press could quote Medium instead of Nextdoor. (edit: https://twitter.com/topangafrontier is the best summary link)
I know in practice, Nextdoor is kind of a hangout for the worst types of HOA/worry-wort/NIMBY type. But, I kinda get this. The whole point of Nextdoor is privacy. Like, there's a type of socialization that only works based on geography (i.e. - my neighbors get to know my address, my comings and goings, my possessions - stuff that should not be shared widely). If the privacy thing is blown up, then there goes the last actual "social" network.
Also, what kind of journalist is going through Nextdoor looking for stories? That's like the laziest, most pedantic muckraking possible. Can you find no one to get a quote from?
Also, what kind of journalist is going through Nextdoor looking for stories? That's like the laziest, most pedantic muckraking possible. Can you find no one to get a quote from?
I kinda get it too, but at the end of the day there's no way for Nextdoor to effectively enforce the rule, and there's no reason for a journalist (not party to any agreement) to ignore what is sent to them. The rule may as well not exist. And if the rule is absolutely necessary, then Nextdoor should not exist.
> Like, there's a type of socialization that only works based on geography
There are also local newspapers. I do understand Nextdoor's motivation here, but it does seem a little odd. Journalists typically get stories by talking to people, and local journalists by talking to local people. Nextdoor is a specific avenue to do exactly that. And half the complaints on Nextdoor are things the author would probably love to have featured in the news (though hopefully they won't be, no-one needs to encourage the NIMBYs), and might be ones that would benefit from a reporter investigating them.
There are also local newspapers. I do understand Nextdoor's motivation here, but it does seem a little odd. Journalists typically get stories by talking to people, and local journalists by talking to local people. Nextdoor is a specific avenue to do exactly that. And half the complaints on Nextdoor are things the author would probably love to have featured in the news (though hopefully they won't be, no-one needs to encourage the NIMBYs), and might be ones that would benefit from a reporter investigating them.
Except the same people that fret about privacy post sensitive information about their neighbors at the drop of a hat. These people have no clue about the ramifications of their actions.
Or they don't care about anyone but themselves in this regard.
Private for them but everyone else can get rekt.
Private for them but everyone else can get rekt.
Yep, hypocrisy across the board in a policy like this.
Yeah, on the one hand anything you write, say, or do in public (or even a semi-public forum or a broad company mailing list) is subject to posting on news sites, YouTube, blogs, etc. No privacy. Get over it.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's actually a good thing to just throw up our hands and say that there's simply no such thing as expectation of privacy and, if it's that important to you, just keep your mouth shut.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's actually a good thing to just throw up our hands and say that there's simply no such thing as expectation of privacy and, if it's that important to you, just keep your mouth shut.
If you want privacy, I guess you have to do it the old-fashioned personal meeting way. No recording devices. Deniability if that's necessary. Snapchat has the silly "this message will self-destruct", but someone can still point a camera at their phone to record it.
I don't see how doing it in person would change the logic. Aren't we saying that anything you do in public has no expectation of privacy? So some neighbor might be pointing a laser mic at your garden fence conversation from a window 80 meters away but hey, it's a public conversation!
That's how I feel when people say "oh there's no expectation of privacy cause you can just sign up with a fake name on a gift card."
That's how I feel when people say "oh there's no expectation of privacy cause you can just sign up with a fake name on a gift card."
That's even more insecure, as your neighbor might draw a gun then.
> Nextdoor is kind of a hangout for the worst types of HOA/worry-wort/NIMBY type
That might have something to do with where you live. In our neighborhood, it's more of a status report on various happenings like crime, city projects, etc. Here's an example from today: someone posted they were putting a 9' x 6' Persian Rug on the curb, free for the taking.
That might have something to do with where you live. In our neighborhood, it's more of a status report on various happenings like crime, city projects, etc. Here's an example from today: someone posted they were putting a 9' x 6' Persian Rug on the curb, free for the taking.
I've seen a few ND communities. They've been both what you're describing and also what GP described. They're not mutually exclusive.
>The whole point of Nextdoor is privacy. Like, there's a type of socialization that only works based on geography (i.e. - my neighbors get to know my address, my comings and goings, my possessions - stuff that should not be shared widely).
What makes Nextdoor special over something like Facebook? Especially when you consider the origins of Facebook (school networks, etc).
What makes Nextdoor special over something like Facebook? Especially when you consider the origins of Facebook (school networks, etc).
The Internet is a public network. Regardless of any particular site's PR or stated purpose, people need to learn that anything you post to the Internet is public because it's effectively public. The site may say it's private, have terms and conditions that try to pretend it's private, or it might have "privacy controls" that let you/them try to gate access to the content. But once it's posted, the cat is out of the bag, and the content is one scraper or security breach away from being public. Treat it as such.
I would take it even further: "Digital is Forever" [1]. Just look at the Dolphins coach who thought he was sending a private video to someone. AFAIK he wasn't outed by a scraper or breach, rather it was the intended recipient who published his video.
[1] https://blogs.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/17/digital-is-fore...
[1] https://blogs.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/17/digital-is-fore...
> people need to learn that anything you post to the Internet is public because it's effectively public
Private silos exist, but people need to learn that they come down to trust and that this circle of trust is much wider than the realize. Even if you know and trust every single person in a group to not share information, do you trust fiends and family that might share the computer, from the creepy uncle to the twelve year old cousin? Do you trust that the can secure their own home network? Do you trust that they won't connect their device to a wifi honey pot? IME most people overestimate the amount of people they can trust, underestimate the amount of people they need to trust and are oblivious to the fact that once something has breached this trust circle it's breached for good.
Private silos exist, but people need to learn that they come down to trust and that this circle of trust is much wider than the realize. Even if you know and trust every single person in a group to not share information, do you trust fiends and family that might share the computer, from the creepy uncle to the twelve year old cousin? Do you trust that the can secure their own home network? Do you trust that they won't connect their device to a wifi honey pot? IME most people overestimate the amount of people they can trust, underestimate the amount of people they need to trust and are oblivious to the fact that once something has breached this trust circle it's breached for good.
Gmail?
Data can be replicated infinitely, for zero cost, with no notice to it's creator. The only effective way to protect data against universal distribution is to keep it on your machine (and keep that machine secure).
With Gmail, big G has everything. More relevant to the grandparent, the recipients of your mail have everything you send them. They can forward it anywhere and there's nothing you can do about it.
With Gmail, big G has everything. More relevant to the grandparent, the recipients of your mail have everything you send them. They can forward it anywhere and there's nothing you can do about it.
I think it's wise to treat anything in one's Gmail as "one [however unlikely] breach away from being public info" and use it accordingly.
That was actually my biggest surprise about the DNC hack.
People who live by the maxim "don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't want people to see on the front page of the New York Times" apparently decided archiving controversial internal party squabbles was a good idea, and acted surprised when stuff showed up on the front page of the New York Times.
People who live by the maxim "don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't want people to see on the front page of the New York Times" apparently decided archiving controversial internal party squabbles was a good idea, and acted surprised when stuff showed up on the front page of the New York Times.
> People who live by the maxim "don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't want people to see on the front page of the New York Times"
Almost nobody lives by that maxim; they might have a few decades ago, but the utility of low-latency, asynchronous, low-ambiguity communications channels now available, which inherently involved text or recorded content with the same vulnerability, is so high that people who might have lived by that maximizes when writing meant dead-tree memoranda and files no longer do.
But, even when it was more current, I suspect that was, as the saying goes, always observed more in the breach than anything else.
Almost nobody lives by that maxim; they might have a few decades ago, but the utility of low-latency, asynchronous, low-ambiguity communications channels now available, which inherently involved text or recorded content with the same vulnerability, is so high that people who might have lived by that maximizes when writing meant dead-tree memoranda and files no longer do.
But, even when it was more current, I suspect that was, as the saying goes, always observed more in the breach than anything else.
Emmanuel Macron's campaign was hacked as well, but did not unleash any extraordinary findings beyond gigabytes of boring meeting arrangements and schedule confirmations.
Either the attackers expended less effort on Macron HQ vs DNC and never got to the juicy stuff, or someone within Macron camp ran a tight ship on what can and cannot go through insecure channels.
Either the attackers expended less effort on Macron HQ vs DNC and never got to the juicy stuff, or someone within Macron camp ran a tight ship on what can and cannot go through insecure channels.
Even Gmail should be assumed to be “eventually public”. That’s why we have this new saying:
”Dance Like No One is Watching; Email Like It May One Day Be Read Aloud in a Deposition”
You’re taking a serious gamble if you assume your email will be private forever, as certain politicians now know all too well.
”Dance Like No One is Watching; Email Like It May One Day Be Read Aloud in a Deposition”
You’re taking a serious gamble if you assume your email will be private forever, as certain politicians now know all too well.
Good. That's sorta the whole point.
Not everything should be globalised and ripped apart from any private context. Frankly this is a lesson we collectively need to learn IMO.
I get that nothing can anymore completely accomplish a total sort of privacy or other perfect reduction of scope, but that as a theme does have value IMO.
Not everything should be globalised and ripped apart from any private context. Frankly this is a lesson we collectively need to learn IMO.
I get that nothing can anymore completely accomplish a total sort of privacy or other perfect reduction of scope, but that as a theme does have value IMO.
I think the global reach is the problem here: kind of like how phonebooks, public records intended for the interest of the local population get scraped and sold to ad businesses and credit bureaus.
I'm pretty sure that some of the content posted to Nextdoor could be of public interest, and it would make sense that a local newspaper or TV station may wish to report on it, just as they may report on the minutes of city council meetings or organized events.
I think the issue here is when you combine a local newspaper with the global reach of the Internet, and something that was meant for a small audience is now being shared way outside of its original target audience. I sure hope people don't go posting the minutia of my local neighborhood to BuzzFeed or reddit.
Regardless, this is just for show. This sort of policy isn't going to make any difference. We've seen these sorts of scraping issues in the past with other walled gardens: site owners make a big deal about scraping, shut down their APIs, etc. It hasn't stopped content from being scraped and reported on. Reporters will continue to report; users will continue to make anonymous story tips; and new accounts will sign up after old accounts get locked out.
I'm pretty sure that some of the content posted to Nextdoor could be of public interest, and it would make sense that a local newspaper or TV station may wish to report on it, just as they may report on the minutes of city council meetings or organized events.
I think the issue here is when you combine a local newspaper with the global reach of the Internet, and something that was meant for a small audience is now being shared way outside of its original target audience. I sure hope people don't go posting the minutia of my local neighborhood to BuzzFeed or reddit.
Regardless, this is just for show. This sort of policy isn't going to make any difference. We've seen these sorts of scraping issues in the past with other walled gardens: site owners make a big deal about scraping, shut down their APIs, etc. It hasn't stopped content from being scraped and reported on. Reporters will continue to report; users will continue to make anonymous story tips; and new accounts will sign up after old accounts get locked out.
[deleted]
I tried to join next door, but my neighborhood has carved my house out of their boundaries. It kinds of sucks being a non-mormon in Utah sometimes.
I lived in a Utah city with one of the highest concentrations of Mormons and on the whole people were incredibly gracious. Surely not all experiences are equal, but for over three years my wife and I were made to feel welcome in the community.
There were little inconveniences like no coffee provided at a lot of workplaces and liquor restrictions, but if you love outdoor stuff that alone can make it a pretty nice place to live.
There were little inconveniences like no coffee provided at a lot of workplaces and liquor restrictions, but if you love outdoor stuff that alone can make it a pretty nice place to live.
Over three years? I recently started my third decade. I've lived in both Salt Lake as well as in more rural areas.
My complaint wasn't prompted by an uninformed view of fellow Utah residents.
My complaint wasn't prompted by an uninformed view of fellow Utah residents.
So what? Three years is plenty of time to form an opinion and thirty doesn’t necessarily make for a better opinion.
And your view is uninformed, because it’s anecdotal, one data point, based on your microcosm of experience, just like mine.
There’s not enough information here to generalize, but I still have real friends from having lived there, and I think it’s appropriate to offer a counterpoint, lest anyone interpret a one off comment as a truism.
And your view is uninformed, because it’s anecdotal, one data point, based on your microcosm of experience, just like mine.
There’s not enough information here to generalize, but I still have real friends from having lived there, and I think it’s appropriate to offer a counterpoint, lest anyone interpret a one off comment as a truism.
Wait, do Mormons have a problem with coffee?
Caffeine is the issue I think
Yes. If you ever travel there for work, expect to find your hotel room well-stocked with decaf only.
Man, every time I learn something new about Mormons it makes them even weirder.
I agree, but the thing is all religions have weird things. Moreover weird people can be cool and make the world a more interesting place.
The real problem is when a religion becomes oppressive, dangerous, or...well I’m sure you know the pitfalls we’ve learned of over 5000 years.
A fair number of people here are almost militantly against religion in all forms. I happen to take the opinion that it’s not inherently evil, that some good comes from it, and we should judge every situation on its own ethics rather than alienate such a large class of people.
The real problem is when a religion becomes oppressive, dangerous, or...well I’m sure you know the pitfalls we’ve learned of over 5000 years.
A fair number of people here are almost militantly against religion in all forms. I happen to take the opinion that it’s not inherently evil, that some good comes from it, and we should judge every situation on its own ethics rather than alienate such a large class of people.
Did they carve out just your house, or some group of houses?
How do they carve out the boundaries? Are the neighborhoods not generated by algorithm?
Do you have to pay HoA fees, maintain your house per their regulations, etc?
I see lot of troll potential here :)
I see lot of troll potential here :)
[deleted]
It is ridiculous that they are doubling down on their "private social network" nonsense rather than admitting to users that whatever they post there is ALWAYS going to be public.
Agreed, that's stupid. That's not how digital content works. The only thing that works is anonymity, which social networks of our age have forbidden on principle.
That, along with maybe bot-generated fake posts to add deniability.
That, along with maybe bot-generated fake posts to add deniability.
People regularly leak what happens inside companies, where people have signed secrecy agreements and face repercussions far more serious than losing account access to a social network.
Nextdoor is fighting a losing battle.
Nextdoor is fighting a losing battle.
I'm ok with this. Nextdoor is the only social media I use. Regardless of what they do with collected data, I much appreciate posts and profiles being local and reach user determined. I appreciate you can't use it to stalk people ala Facebook. Users should not be sharing posts to a wider audience than the user requested.
I've never seen Nextdoor. But from what I've read here, these are semi-public groups and may act as a sort of informal, ultra-local administration.
If that includes making any group decisions that affect others in the neighbourhood, I believe it's important that at least the possibility of journalists making it public remains.
There are all sorts of organisations that are free to choose their members and keep their meeting private. But the focus on specific neighbourhoods changes the power dynamics somewhat, because you cannot escape such a group's power (if it has any).
It may be comparable to professional associations like the various local bar associations: they are required to admit any local lawyer in good standing, because their decisions can affect everyone practicing law within their jurisdiction.
If that includes making any group decisions that affect others in the neighbourhood, I believe it's important that at least the possibility of journalists making it public remains.
There are all sorts of organisations that are free to choose their members and keep their meeting private. But the focus on specific neighbourhoods changes the power dynamics somewhat, because you cannot escape such a group's power (if it has any).
It may be comparable to professional associations like the various local bar associations: they are required to admit any local lawyer in good standing, because their decisions can affect everyone practicing law within their jurisdiction.
I dunno, because I can only see my neighborhood...but that's not how it is at all. It's literally a little forum that has no real power. Ours is used for selling things, asking for recommendations, reporting crime, and reporting lost/found animals.
So what denotes a reporter? What if you share with a friend who works for a newspaper? Or someone who works with a blogger.
It's a stupid rule, and imho only there to make the users feel like they are in a unique clique. There is no real way to enforce it, nor any penalities.
So basically, just PR.
It's a stupid rule, and imho only there to make the users feel like they are in a unique clique. There is no real way to enforce it, nor any penalities.
So basically, just PR.
If you share it, and it shows up in a public article from your sharing, then you broke the rule. It's not that complicated.
So if you share it to a family member, and someone writes a story similar. . . What is the edge case here.
You cannot expect only one person to make a deduction from information points.
Edit: or are we talking 'specific headlines'. So if you want to share just alter the headline?
Look I can't see any way this could work in reality, it's just PR imho.
You cannot expect only one person to make a deduction from information points.
Edit: or are we talking 'specific headlines'. So if you want to share just alter the headline?
Look I can't see any way this could work in reality, it's just PR imho.
Are rules only valid when they consider every edge case? That disqualifies almost every law, among other things.
With a little bit of moderator judgment a rule like that can be enforced. It's ridiculous to say that these bans somehow can't be done, that moderators will look at a proof that their system is imperfect and come undone.
It won't be perfect, but it's eminently doable.
With a little bit of moderator judgment a rule like that can be enforced. It's ridiculous to say that these bans somehow can't be done, that moderators will look at a proof that their system is imperfect and come undone.
It won't be perfect, but it's eminently doable.
Honestly, I think rules should cover ever edge case that you can brainstorm within 10 minutes of thought.
If some unaffiliated party can come up with the edge case easily, your rule should have a guideline about it--even if said guideline is only internal documentation.
To be fair, were I running this moderation system, I would simply say anything unclear would be dealt with on a case by case basis, and those decisions would set precedent like in the actual legal system.
If some unaffiliated party can come up with the edge case easily, your rule should have a guideline about it--even if said guideline is only internal documentation.
To be fair, were I running this moderation system, I would simply say anything unclear would be dealt with on a case by case basis, and those decisions would set precedent like in the actual legal system.
> There is no real way to enforce it, nor any penalities
Sure there is. Break the rules and you get Permabanned!
> What if you share with a friend who works for a newspaper? Or someone who works with a blogger.
Permabanned!
> Insert other weird edge case here....
Again, Permabanned! No exceptions.
Don't think its fair? Well I don't care. It is their site, they don't have to be fair.
Don't want to lose access to the hip neighborhood social network? Then don't break go around making things public that were supposed to be private. Don't toe the line with weird edge cases either.
Yeah, sure, you could go all secret agent and take all the precautions and not get caught, or try and get around onerous multi-account protections that they have in place. But that sounds like a lot of work that most people aren't going to do. People are lazy, and you don't have to catch 100% of everybody in order to make people afraid enough so that they mostly follow the rules.
Sure there is. Break the rules and you get Permabanned!
> What if you share with a friend who works for a newspaper? Or someone who works with a blogger.
Permabanned!
> Insert other weird edge case here....
Again, Permabanned! No exceptions.
Don't think its fair? Well I don't care. It is their site, they don't have to be fair.
Don't want to lose access to the hip neighborhood social network? Then don't break go around making things public that were supposed to be private. Don't toe the line with weird edge cases either.
Yeah, sure, you could go all secret agent and take all the precautions and not get caught, or try and get around onerous multi-account protections that they have in place. But that sounds like a lot of work that most people aren't going to do. People are lazy, and you don't have to catch 100% of everybody in order to make people afraid enough so that they mostly follow the rules.
[deleted]
How does anyone know it was me? Reporters keep their sources confidential as a matter of course.
It's unenforcable.
It's unenforcable.
People make mistakes. You might be able to get away with it or you might not.
Reporters reveal their sources all the time. For example, when they quote someone. Maybe they'd think to protect you or maybe they will make a mistake.
Enforcement doesn't have to be 100% for it to be an effective deterrent. Maybe they have access to your IP logs and can track your viewing history down. You don't know what tools they do or do not have.
And even if it truly IS completely unenforceable, well who says that the average user even knows that? They might just play it safe because they don't want to get banned. That's how rules and enforcement works.
Reporters reveal their sources all the time. For example, when they quote someone. Maybe they'd think to protect you or maybe they will make a mistake.
Enforcement doesn't have to be 100% for it to be an effective deterrent. Maybe they have access to your IP logs and can track your viewing history down. You don't know what tools they do or do not have.
And even if it truly IS completely unenforceable, well who says that the average user even knows that? They might just play it safe because they don't want to get banned. That's how rules and enforcement works.
Journalism has always been hard – most of the things worth reporting on don't welcome the reporters in with open arms, all the time.
That having been said, it seems that as more local community interaction becomes digital and starts to fall within walled-gardens, many things, including reporting get a bit trickier.
Thus far, we have no legal concept around the notion of a public digital space, if there is such a thing, and what privacy rights do, or explicitly do not exist.
I'd argue that things like NextDoor might push us into having to think about the concept of just what is/could be viewed as having a reasonable expectation for privacy.
I can't expect that my speech or even image is private if I go outside on the public street, for example... so for sites like NextDoor, is there a threshold where they become so dominant or so a part of our daily lives/community interaction where we should start to see them as public spaces with certain expectations around rights (or lack thereof)? When it's small, the private club idea fits well – but if it becomes dominant and essential to community life – do we need to rethink that idea?
That having been said, it seems that as more local community interaction becomes digital and starts to fall within walled-gardens, many things, including reporting get a bit trickier.
Thus far, we have no legal concept around the notion of a public digital space, if there is such a thing, and what privacy rights do, or explicitly do not exist.
I'd argue that things like NextDoor might push us into having to think about the concept of just what is/could be viewed as having a reasonable expectation for privacy.
I can't expect that my speech or even image is private if I go outside on the public street, for example... so for sites like NextDoor, is there a threshold where they become so dominant or so a part of our daily lives/community interaction where we should start to see them as public spaces with certain expectations around rights (or lack thereof)? When it's small, the private club idea fits well – but if it becomes dominant and essential to community life – do we need to rethink that idea?
Why isn't it as simple as "if it's not on a computer you own, don't expect privacy."
Because that would preclude the internet from being useful for a rather large portion of people's lives.
(Not that I believe you have a right to privacy when you organise as a neighbourhood group and basically act like a tiny, kleptocratic, unelected apartheid regime.)
(Not that I believe you have a right to privacy when you organise as a neighbourhood group and basically act like a tiny, kleptocratic, unelected apartheid regime.)
How so? The current state is that nothing is private if it's on someone else's server. What I described is the current state. Just because you trust Google not to publish all your email doesn't mean they're private.
Nextdoor is quite popular here unless you want to talk about politics, especially if the community LEAD is on the other side.
Nextdoor uses real name with real address etc, and it seems to be pretty useful for the neighborhood news and events etc, I don't see other close competitors.
But then, I hope there is an alternative.
http://fortune.com/2017/05/21/nextdoor-revenue/
If very thing goes right, it could be another facebook, I'd be interested in its IPO.
Nextdoor uses real name with real address etc, and it seems to be pretty useful for the neighborhood news and events etc, I don't see other close competitors.
But then, I hope there is an alternative.
http://fortune.com/2017/05/21/nextdoor-revenue/
If very thing goes right, it could be another facebook, I'd be interested in its IPO.
I had to quit NextDoor after my neighbors demonstrated all the vile hatred we've come to expect from the anonymized Internet, but with the added benefit that people know who you are and where you live.
Didn’t want to stick around to help solve the problem? It sounds like you could have educated them!
I wonder if that’s possible. Being close minded and vitriolic about political issues is a general personality trait.
If people are posting on the site under the express agreement that the group is private and posts will not be reproduced in public, then what the reporter did is unethical in the vast majority of cases, including this one.
We are on a march to losing our collective faith in journalism and leading the way are careless reporters and editors who fancy themselves public advocates.
We are on a march to losing our collective faith in journalism and leading the way are careless reporters and editors who fancy themselves public advocates.
Nah, if you post shit online, it's public. Don't assume otherwise, else you're going to have a bad time.
While that may be a valid view from the perspective of a privacy warrior, it does not accurately reflect the ethics of journalism.
Wait, so the ethics of journalism require accepting TOS/EULAs? If that's the case, then quite a lot of very important investigative journalism in the past few decades is ruled invalid! (despite the touch of sarcasm, I'm also genuinely curious)
Journalism ethics do contemplate situations where otherwise unreportable news of crucial importance to the public should be published. Same for news about things that happen in private but are related to public figures. There can often be very serious consequences for the organization and reporter in these cases.
Neither applies here.
Neither applies here.
You're conflating whistleblowing with publishing conversations that are explicitly "off the record".
Don’t be ridiculous, journalistic ethics are just what’s convenient in the long run for journalists.
Well if you break the terms of service for a site, you shouldn't be surprised when you are permabanned. No more hip neighborhood social network for you.
Nope. A journalist isn't obliged to respect an agreement they didn't accept. The user who sent them the screenshot may have done something unethical, though.
I'm a bit surprised by all of this. For starters, I've never even heard of this NextDoor site, but apparently there's plenty of users here.
Is it really correct to say NextDoor is a public forum? You can only access the content if you live within the specified area and you agree to their terms of service. What boundaries or factors are used when deciding if something is considered private or public?
Why don't companies using online services suffer similar issues? If you leak private company communications, that's usually going to be grounds for termination. But what other legal action can they take against you? Normally you'd sign an NDA to prevent communications from being leaked, however I'm not sure what legal repercussions are available once it's broken. Would it be technically feasible to create a social network that required signing an NDA to join?
Is it really correct to say NextDoor is a public forum? You can only access the content if you live within the specified area and you agree to their terms of service. What boundaries or factors are used when deciding if something is considered private or public?
Why don't companies using online services suffer similar issues? If you leak private company communications, that's usually going to be grounds for termination. But what other legal action can they take against you? Normally you'd sign an NDA to prevent communications from being leaked, however I'm not sure what legal repercussions are available once it's broken. Would it be technically feasible to create a social network that required signing an NDA to join?
Just went to nextdoor.com to see what the app was all about after seeing this and sure enough, there's a full-width banner on their front page of media outlet logos, including NYT and WSJ. Oh the irony.
What's funny is that it doesn't explicitly say that they're endorsements from these outlets, they're just there. I was always under the impression that this isn't technically legal, but I'm no legal expert.
I know this is off-topic, but can anyone just add a banner of media outlet logos to their site/blog? There's definitely an implied status claim being made here. Why else would one company randomly post other corporate logos that aren't paid for or explicitly endorsed?
What's funny is that it doesn't explicitly say that they're endorsements from these outlets, they're just there. I was always under the impression that this isn't technically legal, but I'm no legal expert.
I know this is off-topic, but can anyone just add a banner of media outlet logos to their site/blog? There's definitely an implied status claim being made here. Why else would one company randomly post other corporate logos that aren't paid for or explicitly endorsed?
So if the poster doesn't own their posts, does NextDoor? Are they legally responsible for what the poster has said?
This will be interesting.
This will be interesting.
This is an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, I hate the idea of sites like FB using my posts as content for their marketing, but on the other hand, having NextDoor restrict who can see my content is also upsetting.
I might even say that NextDoor's restriction on my content is more upsetting because I expect everything I post on social media (which I do on purpose) to be part of the public domain. The idea that I, or reporters, can't use it as such, makes it seem like they are exercising ownership over my content.
I might even say that NextDoor's restriction on my content is more upsetting because I expect everything I post on social media (which I do on purpose) to be part of the public domain. The idea that I, or reporters, can't use it as such, makes it seem like they are exercising ownership over my content.
I am not certain how a private, closed, membership-only site with no public accessibility implied"public domain".
NextDoor is restrictive by design---having your discussions be private is the entirety of their upsell to use them instead of Facebook groups.
NextDoor is restrictive by design---having your discussions be private is the entirety of their upsell to use them instead of Facebook groups.
That's a straw man argument. If you want your content to be free, open a free WordPress account.
There was a recent argument over gun ownership in my neighborhood's nextdoor, which resulted in a bunch of gun owners outing themselves. Unfortunately, this did this alongside their actual addresses, which isn't great for various reasons. Users of Nextdoor seem to struggle more than most services around how they represent their private and public lives on the site: it seems to give many a false sense of anonymity, which is dangerous as hell when performed at the neighborhood layer.
Imagine if the argument was over growing medical marijuana at one's home. A string of burglaries, or worse, would ensue.
NextDoor - like Yik Yak, but for grownups. Same problems.
Sad to hear about racism on Nextdoor, but I am not surprised. I am an admin (Nextdoor calls this a "lead") on my neighborhood's Nextdoor and I have seen and promptly deleted several racist posts over the year that I have been an admin. It is up to the admins to apply the rules for their neighborhoods. If you can prove that your admins are passive and not enforcing Nextdoor's rules, they will act and remove lead privileges from the bad admins.
Wha.... what if you ARE a reporter?
Also, frankly, what is a reported these days? Anyone with an audience? A popular FB feed? This kind of thing is ignorant of how ...distributed "reporting" has become.
This is pretty disappointing, but more than that, pointless to try to police..
This is pretty disappointing, but more than that, pointless to try to police..
then don't report on posts
Not to be facetious, but what if it's in the public interest?
Then accept the consequences of being kicked off of a privately-owned website?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Oh you’re free to report on it. You’re just not free to keep using the site afterwards. Their club, their rules.
>You’re just not free to keep using the site afterwards.
Bring me to court about that one.
Bring me to court about that one.
I think the court would have to thread the needle on whether:
(1) the function of the site is like a private club whose secrets are vital to its continued existence,
(1a) the language in the ToS supports (1)
(2) the private news items shared there are in the public interest and likely not reported on otherwise (at least the ones that were disclosed publicly).
No one likes chilled speech but there's plenty of examples of legitimate agreements for non-disclosure. Those agreements provide mutual benefit and could be threatened by a ruling in favor of a claimant against NextDoor.
(1) the function of the site is like a private club whose secrets are vital to its continued existence,
(1a) the language in the ToS supports (1)
(2) the private news items shared there are in the public interest and likely not reported on otherwise (at least the ones that were disclosed publicly).
No one likes chilled speech but there's plenty of examples of legitimate agreements for non-disclosure. Those agreements provide mutual benefit and could be threatened by a ruling in favor of a claimant against NextDoor.
Their not claiming non disclosure. Just the right to kick you off their service (out of their club) if they don’t like what you do. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” That is, in fact, a legally protected right in the United States. A constitutional right by some arguments.
See, for example, the Boy Scouts vs a long list of gays, atheists, and girls, where this was affirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court.
See, for example, the Boy Scouts vs a long list of gays, atheists, and girls, where this was affirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court.
You interestingly seem to believe your first amendment rights free you from any repercussions.
That is ... not supported by law. You have strongly confused prior restraint laws (IE what you'd be punished for publishing and what people can prevent you from publishing) and contract law (IE whether they can legally keep you off the site, enjoin you from doing so further, and receive money damages).
That is ... not supported by law. You have strongly confused prior restraint laws (IE what you'd be punished for publishing and what people can prevent you from publishing) and contract law (IE whether they can legally keep you off the site, enjoin you from doing so further, and receive money damages).
> Their club, their rules.
>don't report on posts
Make me.
Make me.
...it's not complicated. You can, but you get banned, and then you can't do it again.
I still feel like people havent figured out this internet thing.
If I want to report on a post by say some scrubby Islamic State propagandist I'm going to do it. They can ban me but it will just become part of the reporting. Then give me a few minutes and I'll be back on the site doing my thing again.
Terrible terms of service don't make a private garden. Neither does IP/phone number fingerprinting. I agree with you though, it is not that complicated.
If I want to report on a post by say some scrubby Islamic State propagandist I'm going to do it. They can ban me but it will just become part of the reporting. Then give me a few minutes and I'll be back on the site doing my thing again.
Terrible terms of service don't make a private garden. Neither does IP/phone number fingerprinting. I agree with you though, it is not that complicated.
> Neither does IP/phone number fingerprinting.
It's not that easy to get an unlimited supplies of proxies that are located in a single neighborhood.
It's not that easy to get an unlimited supplies of proxies that are located in a single neighborhood.
Part of my local NextDoor after I got a card in the mail.
Lots of "Where was that police car that went down my street headed?", "Escaped Animal", "Flea Market swap", "Promoting my home researched Christian eschatology book published on vanity press".
Occastionally there's useful information like City Council issues, major road closures, etc. But As others have said a lot of NIMBYs, armchair patriots, and thinly disguised racisim.
Lots of "Where was that police car that went down my street headed?", "Escaped Animal", "Flea Market swap", "Promoting my home researched Christian eschatology book published on vanity press".
Occastionally there's useful information like City Council issues, major road closures, etc. But As others have said a lot of NIMBYs, armchair patriots, and thinly disguised racisim.
Yeah, well, in my northeast MA community, NextDoor is FakeNuzDoor. Wannabe politicians spam it with scurrilous garbage about each other, and the rest of it devolves into arguing about that.
I guess it's good having news media pick up this stuff violates the terms of service.
It does have a "delete my account" feature. So it has at least one useful feature.
I guess it's good having news media pick up this stuff violates the terms of service.
It does have a "delete my account" feature. So it has at least one useful feature.
Same thing in Cupertino. There’s even a scandalous blog that someone updates to regularly attack various local politicians and school board members.
Huh... I don't use Nextdoor any longer, but when I used it in Alameda, it was really great. I got someone to loan me a weedwhacker in like five minutes, another gave me a table saw, another loaned me a sander... my experience was pretty good...
There were crimes reported, and to be honest the most frequent posts I did see were for moving boxes
There were crimes reported, and to be honest the most frequent posts I did see were for moving boxes
The interesting issue I find in this post is that nextdoor stated that this is a “private network”. While probably not using a technical definition, it still seems to overreach quite a bit. I haven’t heard of a forum claiming to be this before. Maybe a strictly vetted user base but never a private network.
>And the site's administrators now warn that users who leak Nextdoor posts to reporters could be kicked off the site.
...and what's preventing the reporters from creating new accounts? journalistic integrity? threat of lawsuit (not sure what standing they have)? also, how do they track down who the source is?
...and what's preventing the reporters from creating new accounts? journalistic integrity? threat of lawsuit (not sure what standing they have)? also, how do they track down who the source is?
Nextdoor mails you a postcard for validation, and your address has to be within the neighborhood.
I'm sure you can convince someone to "lend" their address to you for some $$ so you could create some accounts. Plus if you maintain good opsec with those accounts + compare the posts between the two accounts (to make sure there aren't any "watermarks" in the posts), it would be impossible for them to catch you.
You'd have to find a pretty stupid home owner to agree to let a stranger mail stuff to their address...you know mailing contraband and all that.
Better idea is to find a home for sale without a tenant and claim that as your address and hound the mailbox for the next few days.
I also don't think Nextdoor carss about duplicate accounts. I kept my account from my old neighborhood and created a new one for my current home using another email address. I don't try to hide it... Same name, I address etc.
Better idea is to find a home for sale without a tenant and claim that as your address and hound the mailbox for the next few days.
I also don't think Nextdoor carss about duplicate accounts. I kept my account from my old neighborhood and created a new one for my current home using another email address. I don't try to hide it... Same name, I address etc.
A local newspaper probably has local reporters, so they can just use their home address?
Never even heard of NextDoor before reading this. Is it just localized discussion forums?
It's like Facebook but for your neighborhood, along with verified identities (people verify their addresses through a couple different methods) and groups based on geo-boundaries (which try to reflect the physical real-world neighborhoods).
You can communicate with people in your immediate neighborhood or with people in nearby neighborhoods.
As you can imagine, what people talk about really depends on the character of your real world neighborhood and the people who live there. That's why I would hesitate to characterize the entire product based on any individual experience with it. It really depends on the neighborhood.
I've personally found it to be a mix of extremely useful and meh, depending on the use-case and context. There's definitely immense potential.
It's one of the more under the radar billion dollar companies: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nextdoor
You can communicate with people in your immediate neighborhood or with people in nearby neighborhoods.
As you can imagine, what people talk about really depends on the character of your real world neighborhood and the people who live there. That's why I would hesitate to characterize the entire product based on any individual experience with it. It really depends on the neighborhood.
I've personally found it to be a mix of extremely useful and meh, depending on the use-case and context. There's definitely immense potential.
It's one of the more under the radar billion dollar companies: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nextdoor
Local Facebook
[deleted]
Why are there two articles from wilamette week on the front page at the same time? Is it just me or does this look suspicious?
Common pattern in HN: somebody finds an article from source X, a few thousand people read the article. Of those, a hundred read linked articles. Pretty soon one of those is submitted, and a thousand people read the article...
[deleted]
[deleted]
I've seen people ask the best way to report black people to the cops so they'll be kept from driving through "our safe neighborhood." It's so full of dog whistles my neighbors dogs bark when I open the app.
The only reason NextDoor is freaking out is because they know there's enough of that sort of material to really cause a mass exodus if it ever escaped the neighborhoods it's posted in.
That said...it's...a weird issue, to be sure. NextDoor tried to encourage an expectation of privacy but like...who actually expects that? Really. Anyone with a credit card matching the address they key in can get in. It's not the post card only thing any more.
I could easily change my billing address on my credit card, sign up for some neighborhood on the west coast, and then change my CC address back. Done.
NextDoor has done nothing to actually secure the neighborhood, so it's not like it means anything to say this to the customers. If anything, the neighborhood members could possibly sue NextDoor for overstating the privacy of their posts.
I guess the conclusion is: I'm not just throwing my hands up and saying, "Oh well it's online no privacy!" I'm more saying this is probably the absolute worst hill to choose to fight that battle on.