UP FRONT NOTE: This is being published here because the social media application Nextdoor intentionally deletes criticism of their moderation actions and they punish users who violate this, plus they do this by bastardizing their own rules. How dare someone complain about the corrupted moderation, the horror!
Nextdoor cannot delete this post.
I submit as proof that Nextdoor deletes moderation complaints and punishes anyone that violates their freedom of speech crushing rules, this comment was posted as a comment within a comment thread,
“Someone in this thread falsely flagged two of my comments as “misinformation,” and unfortunately, the Nextdoor moderators took your false bait and accepted it as fact without verifying its validity. Falsely reporting something as misinformation without being able to demonstrate that it’s actually false or inaccurate is dishonest. That’s not a difference of opinion—it’s a lie. And a person who knowingly lies is, by definition, a liar.”
More on that later.
It’s been my observation that social media platforms an blogs have become the preferred 21st century method of sharing opinions on all kinds of topics, it’s where the vast majority of the population chooses to exercise their freedom of speech. The problem is, and has been for a while, that free speech on social media is increasingly hitting a totalitarian minded process, anti-free speech wall that’s wide open to abuse and it’s being used to target speech that people don’t like, and they’re literally censoring free speech under false pretenses. The administrators and owners of these social media platforms are well aware that this is happening (it’s not breaking news hot off the presses) and they’re intentionally ignoring it, rationalizing it with unethical rationalizations, or they’re imbeciles that are unknowingly enabling it. What’s happening is unethical, morally bankrupt, anti-Constitutional, and anti-American.
The process that the anti-free speech people are using to target free speech is social media moderation practices that have put in place computer algorithms, inconsistent and ridiculous policies that can be easily bastardized and abused, and they recruit biased platform users that are given the power of censorship. These systems have been deeply infiltrated and thoroughly corrupted by political hacks that wield their power over others by targeting and censoring anything they don’t like for what ever reason they see fit without any repercussions for obvious and flagrant abuse.
Let’s get down to the core, the corrupted moderation on Nextdoor for the Deforest, WI Community. Let’s start with some actual facts.
Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power.
Misinformation: false or inaccurate information.
In a recent Nextdoor discussion regarding DeForest WI Board stopping the fluoridation of their water supply, two comments were reported as “misinformation” by someone and subsequently deleted by moderators. The information was reposted because it was not misinformation, it was facts, it was reported again, the moderators deleted the comments again, then the poster was subjected to a four day suspension for violating Nextdoor Guidelines.
Here’s the first of two comments deleted…
Nate if you claim I am pushing “absolute lies” then you are also claiming the federal courts are also pushing “absolute lies.” I understand you don’t like the outcome of the courts or the subsequent vote of the village board but that doesn’t make what I have said “absolute lies.” Also, you live in Windsor, so the vote of the village board of Deforest doesn’t even affect you. If you think you have evidence that disputes and overcomes the findings of the federal courts, then please present that to the courts and the EPA so they can review your evidence while they go about revising recommended safety levels for fluoridated public water. Until then, as a public official charged with the safety and well being of my constituents, I’ll rely on the courts and the science they relied on, and abide by their conclusion that the levels that were being used at the time of our vote were unsafe.
For those of you who actually would like to learn more about what the federal court found and ordered regarding the specific practice of fluoridating public water at the levels that were being recommended by the EPA at the time our water was being fluoridated, here’s a few excerpts that get to the very heart of the issue. I would also recommend that you watch this video, which details clearly the entirety of the lawsuit, the science, the admissions by the scientist and EPA of the actual health risks, and the ultimate conclusions of the courts.
“Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. It should be noted that this finding does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health; rather, as required by the Amended TSCA, the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response. This order does not dictate precisely what that response must be. Amended TSCA leaves that decision in the first instance to the EPA. One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”
“… scientific evidence has increasingly identified a link between fluoride exposure and adverse cognitive effects in children (reduced IQ). Accordingly, Plaintiffs exercised their power under Amended TSCA and petitioned the EPA to consider whether fluoride in drinking water presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. Notwithstanding the growing and robust body of evidence indicating an association between fluoride intake and cognitive impairment in children, the EPA denied Plaintiffs’ petition. Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court, arguing that the EPA was wrong and that community water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L (the “condition of use”) poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health.”
“There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring.”
“Importantly, the chemical at issue need not be found hazardous at the exposure level to establish that a risk is present under Amended TSCA. Instead, the EPA requires a margin exist between the hazard level and exposure level to ensure safety; if there is an insufficient margin then the chemical poses a risk. The trial evidence in this case establishes that even if there is some uncertainty as to the precise level at which fluoride becomes hazardous (hazard level), under even the most conservative estimates of this level, there is not enough of a margin between the accepted hazard level and the actual human exposure levels to find that fluoride is safe. Simply put, the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA under Amended TSCA.”
“The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.”
“The EPA’s default margin of error requires a factor of 10 between the hazard level and exposure level due to variability in human sensitivities. Put differently, only an exposure that is below 1/10th of the hazard level would be deemed safe under Amended TSCA, given the margin of error required. Here, an even greater margin (100x) is owed because the methodology (which yields the 4 mg/L hazard level) uses the lowest observed adverse effect level (“LOAEL”); this methodology adds an additional level of uncertainty (and hence the application of a 100x rather than 10x margin). But even if only the default 10x margin is required, the safe level of fluoride exposure would be 0.4 mg/L (4 mg/L (hazard level) divided by 10). The “optimal” water fluoridation level in the United States of 0.7 mg/L is nearly double that safe level of 0.4 mg/L for pregnant women and their offspring.”
“… the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden in establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that community water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under Amended TSCA and that the EPA is thus obliged to take regulatory action in response. The Court does not in this order prescribe what that response should be.”
The actual concluding order states:“121. Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States – presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation under the conditions of use.” 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(4)(B)(ii).
122. The Court thus orders the Administrator to initiate rulemaking pursuant to Subsection 6(a) of TSCA. See id. §§ 2605(a), 2620(a).”
The information cited in that comment was literally quotes from a federal court case and a matter of public record, the attorney in the video was the one that sued the FDA and won the case, these are verifiable facts not misinformation. Let’s be 100% truthful, there is nothing in that post that is “misinformation”, as defined above. Commenters and moderators were openly challenged multiple times to cite anything in the post that was “misinformation” as defined, and absolutely no one could cite a single thing, but commenters did level more of the exact same ridiculous accusations of lies and misinformation. Accusations without providing evidence to support the claim is immoral and anti-American, period. False accusations to silence speech are LIES and immoral!
In the same discussion thread, we have the second comment (below) that was reported as “misinformation” and subsequently deleted at the same time as the comment above by moderators, twice and then the poster was subjected to a four day suspension for reposting…
Lee regarding your claims that “fluoride has been in our water for 50 some years …”: Just because something has been used for a long time with claims of safety, doesn’t make it true. After reading the below list, is your claim that because something has been used for a long time also stand for these toxic chemicals as well? If so at least you’re being consistent with your claim. If not, then why is it okay for these other chemicals but not fluoride? Please provide actual definitive reasons and evidence for why I, as a public official, or anyone else should ignore the courts and the emerging science revealing the significant health risks.
Here’s a detailed list of notable environmental toxins that were widely used in the United States, later found to pose significant health risks, and ultimately banned or heavily restricted—often after decades of declared safety by governments or industry. Some entries also touch on related international incidents. This summary covers about the past 100 years [it’s not an exhaustive list]. The government and regulatory system is not always our friend and does not always do what is necessary to protect the general public from harm, even when the data and scientific studies are there to prove the harm:1. Lead in Gasoline
Name: Tetraethyl lead (TEL)
Use: Anti-knock agent in gasoline
Years in Use: ~1920s–1996 (banned in highway vehicles)
Gov’t Safety Claims: Considered safe for decades; industry funded research downplayed risks
Health Risks: Neurotoxicity, especially in children (lowered IQ, behavioral issues), cardiovascular and kidney problems in adults
Ban Year: Phased out in cars starting in the 1970s; final ban for on-road vehicles in 19962. Asbestos
Name: Asbestos (includes several silicate minerals)
Use: Fireproofing, insulation, brakes, construction materials
Years in Use: Late 1800s–present (limited still in use today in some industrial settings)
Gov’t Safety Claims: Promoted as safe and fireproof; dangers known by the 1930s but ignored
Health Risks: Mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis
Ban Year: Partial bans in 1970s–1980s; EPA attempted full ban in 1989, but overturned by courts in 1991. Comprehensive ban passed in 2024 for chrysotile asbestos.3. DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Use: Insecticide (notably for malaria and agriculture)
Years in Use: ~1940s–1972
Gov’t Safety Claims: Considered safe and vital for public health; EPA initially resistant
Health Risks: Endocrine disruption, breast cancer, reproductive harm, environmental persistence
Ban Year: 1972 (U.S.); some global use continues under restricted conditions4. PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls)
Use: Coolants, electrical equipment, flame retardants, sealants
Years in Use: 1929–1979
Gov’t Safety Claims: Widely used with minimal regulation for decades
Health Risks: Carcinogenic, neurotoxic, endocrine disruptors; bioaccumulate in food chain
Ban Year: Manufacture banned in 1979 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)5. PFOA / PFOS (Perfluorinated Chemicals – “Forever Chemicals”)
Use: Non-stick coatings (Teflon), water repellents, firefighting foam
Years in Use: 1950s–present (phased out but persistent)
Gov’t Safety Claims: Industry (DuPont, 3M) hid toxicity; EPA slow to act
Health Risks: Kidney/testicular cancer, thyroid issues, immune dysfunction
Ban Year: No full ban yet in U.S.; voluntary phase-out began in early 2000s; 2023 EPA proposed strict limits in drinking water6. Chlordane
Use: Pesticide for agriculture and termite control
Years in Use: 1940s–1988
Gov’t Safety Claims: Heavily used before toxic buildup was discovered
Health Risks: Liver damage, cancer, neurotoxicity; persistent in environment
Ban Year: 1988 (banned for all uses in U.S.)7. Mercury (in various forms)
Use: Thermometers, dental amalgams, industrial uses, vaccines (as thimerosal)
Years in Use: 1800s–present (reduced usage today)
Gov’t Safety Claims: Long known toxicant, but still used widely
Health Risks: Neurological damage, especially in fetuses/children, kidney and immune damage
Ban Year: No total ban, but major reductions under Mercury Export Ban Act (2008) and EPA rules limiting emissions8. Bisphenol A (BPA)
Use: Plastics, food can linings, receipts
Years in Use: 1950s–present
Gov’t Safety Claims: FDA declared it safe until growing evidence challenged that
Health Risks: Endocrine disruption, reproductive harm, obesity, cancer
Ban Year: Banned in baby bottles and sippy cups (2012); not fully banned in U.S.9. Dioxins
Use: Unintentional byproduct of industrial processes and herbicides (e.g., Agent Orange)
Years in Use: 1940s–present (as contaminant)
Gov’t Safety Claims: Denial of risk, especially re: Agent Orange and Vietnam War
Health Risks: Cancer, reproductive problems, immune suppression
Ban Year: Not “banned,” but EPA and international treaties now restrict their formation10. Aldrin and Dieldrin
Use: Pesticides (especially for crops and termite control)
Years in Use: 1950s–1970s
Gov’t Safety Claims: Approved by USDA and EPA until risks emerged
Health Risks: Liver damage, neurotoxicity, possible carcinogen
Ban Year: 1987 (banned for all uses)11. Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium-6)
Use: Anti-corrosion coatings, stainless steel production
Years in Use: 1920s–present
Gov’t Safety Claims: Long considered safe in water; challenged after Hinkley, CA case Erin Brockovich)
Health Risks: Lung cancer, GI tract damage, reproductive harm
Ban Year: Not banned federally; EPA working on limits as of 2023–202512. Ethylmercury in Vaccines (Thimerosal)
Use: Preservative in multi-dose vaccine vials
Years in Use: 1930s–early 2000s
Gov’t Safety Claims: Widely defended by CDC and FDA; removed “as precaution”
Health Risks: Neurotoxic in large doses; no proven harm in vaccine levels
Ban Year: Removed from most U.S. childhood vaccines by 200113. Australian Case: Sodium Fluoroacetate (1080)
Use: Pesticide (used in Australia for invasive species control)
Note: Not used widely in the U.S., and not banned there. The Australia case involved child poisonings from improper use in the 1950s–1960s, leading to more regulation.
Health Risks: Extremely toxic; interferes with metabolism (ATP production)
Ban Year: Heavily restricted globally; still used in Australia with strict controls14. Smoking / Tobacco
Use: Recreational drug (nicotine delivery)
Years in Use: Centuries
Gov’t Safety Claims: Up through the 1950s–60s, industry claimed it was safe
Health Risks: Cancer, heart disease, COPD, stroke
Ban Year: Not banned, but heavily regulated starting in the 1970s–2000s (advertising bans, public smoking bans, warning labels)
Again, the facts cited in the post are a matter of public record. Again, let’s be 100% truthful, there is nothing in that post that is “misinformation”, as defined above. Again, commenters and moderators were openly challenged multiple times to cite anything in the post that was misinformation as defined, and absolutely no one could cite a single thing, but commenters did level more of the exact same ridiculous accusations of lies and misinformation. Accusations without providing evidence to support the claim is immoral and anti-American, period.
Here is how Nextdoor notified the original poster…
Nextdoor reporters and moderators must be using some kind of thoroughly bastardized definition of “misinformation”.
After the comments were deleted and the original poster was notified, the next step was to appeal through the proper Nextdoor channels which are as follows…
Side Point: please note that last bullet point,
“Please do not: Post complaints about moderation in the main newsfeed.”
The moderation complaint shown at the top of this post was actually posted as a comment within a thread that shows up in the main newsfeed, these comments DO NOT show up in the main news feed you actually have to open the post and then expand the comments to see the comments that have been posted. I repeat the comment was NOT on the Nextdoor main newsfeed, period, end of argument! Nextdoor bastardized it’s own rule, they expanded their rules without notifying users of the change and deleted a moderation complaint that was not in the Nextdoor main newsfeed; therefore, they deleted a comment that was NOT in violation of rules, period, end of argument! Then Nextdoor went on to punish the poster by suspending their account. This is what the evidence shows. Nextdoor is abusing their moderation power.
HERE’S A FACT: Nextdoor DOES NOT MENTION “MODERATION COMPLAINT” anywhere in their Guidelines, so having a comment deleted because it “may have broken the guideline: Moderation Complaints” is a lie. “Moderation Complaints” is also not listed in the choices users must choose from when reporting a comment or post. Deletion for this “Moderation Complaints” reason is a complete bastardization of Nextdoor’s rules and guidelines.
Also Note: In the screen shot above it clearly states, “Inappropriate reporting is a violation of our Community Guidelines.” Keep that in mind as you continue to read.
Now back to the content of the deleted comments.
As you can read in the comments above, the original poster was respectful, presented facts, and openly encouraged fellow commenters to present opposing information if they had it. This is how civil debate takes place; seriously, what more could you ask for? What the original poster got in return for presenting fact based information in a civil manner on a social media platform was bald-faced lies that were intentionally used to silence her words, it was outright censorship of free speech and Nextdoor moderators of the DeForest WI Community not only allowed this travesty but they appeared to encourage it by expanding their immoral actions to include a suspension.
Remember…
“Inappropriate reporting is a violation of our Community Guidelines.”
I’ve shown that the original comments were not misinformation and no one has even attempted to show how the comments are misinformation even after being given multiple chances to do so. Why were the original comments deleted and why weren’t the liars that reported them as “misinformation” punished for false reporting? I’ll answer that question; from my perspective it appears that Nextdoor’s moderation for the DeForest, WI Community is thoroughly corrupted and Nextdoor administrators and owners are unwilling (COWARDS!) or unable to control their abusers of power and instead enable their immoral behavior by doing nothing which actually enables them.
Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Nextdoor was given multiple chances to correct what could easily been explained away as stupidity, but they chose to double down on all the absurd lies! It’s very clear to me that intentional malice is involved and it’s really too bad that I can’t specifically identify the multiple lying political hacks involved in this fiasco of lies and I have to dump all the responsibility on Nextdoor itself. Nextdoor certainly deserves to be called out because they have clearly set up a moderation system that can easily be corrupted and fail miserably. The current Nextdoor moderation system has a pungent odor of pure bias. Where does the buck stop at Nextdoor?
Here is some more information.
The original poster of the intentionally censored facts on Nextdoor lives in the Village of Deforest, WI, is currently an elected member of the Village of DeForest, WI Board, and has stated multiple times that she voted in favor of stopping the fluoridation of their water supply based on actual facts including making the following statement in one of the comments above, “as a public official charged with the safety and well being of my constituents, I’ll rely on the courts and the science they relied on, and abide by their conclusion that the levels that were being used at the time of our vote were unsafe”. Also, to be completely transparent the original poster of the factual information that was intentionally censored happens to be my sister.
Now let’s get into Nextdoor’s moderation practices, the practices regular users get to see.
First, we have a screen shot of Nextdoor Community Guidelines. Pay really close attention to what’s included in the guidelines list…
Second, we have screen shots (6 screen shots, use arrows to navigate) of the choices that people must choose from when reporting a comment. When you start the process of reporting a comment you must choose from these options:
Pay very close attention to what’s included in that very first slide titled “What’s Wrong With This Post” and compare that with the Guideline List above. Let’s just focus on one item.
“Misinformation” is prominently listed as a reason to report a comment when you begin the reporting process, but this reason is NOT listed in any way in the Community Guidelines as a core reason to report a comment. The guidelines specifically state “reporting content or neighbors that violate these Guidelines” but “these guidelines” do not include anything remotely related to “misinformation”, literally! Nextdoor’s reporting process includes a concept that has a fixed definition of “false or inaccurate information” but moderators are abusing their power and treating the concept as something that encompasses anything that the reporter and the moderator chooses to label as “misinformation”. Remember the Guidelines also state quite clearly that “Please remember that disagreeing with a post is not a reason to report it“; well it’s certainly nice of them to mouth that concept but they don’t bother to enforce, not even the spirit of it. As proven by the information provided above, Nextdoor has set in motion a reporting and moderation process that literally violates its own Guidelines and openly allows for intentional abuse by reporters and moderators.
Now let’s look into Nextdoor’s moderation process that regular users don’t get to see.
If what happened to the comments discussed above is what they call “ensuring consistent outcomes” then they must be consistently censoring fact based civilly delivered free speech. Personally I don’t believe that last paragraph one bit, I think it’s falsely blowing sunshine. I’ve seen nothing to show me that that’s true.
MY CONCLUSIONS
1. The individuals that reported these fact based comments as “misinformation” are either partisan hack liars or complete imbeciles. Personally I think most of them are morally bankrupt bald-faced liars and they prove it regularly with the absolutely absurd comments they post.
2. Nextdoor Deforest, WI Community INTENTIONALLY violated the free speech rights of my sister by FALSELY identifying what is actual facts as “misinformation”, aka “false or inaccurate information“, and they falsely censored her fact based civilly delivered free speech and then formally penalized her based on their absurdly false judgements and utterly bastardized rules.
3. The individuals that are moderators for the DeForest, WI Community are either complete imbeciles that don’t understand the guidelines and other statements posted with their rules and guidelines (not likely) and they don’t understand the spirit of the rules and guidelines (not likely) or they’re brazen partisan hacks that really don’t give a shit what the rules say as long as they can get away with bastardizing the rules to intentionally censor the free speech of those they disagree with (very likely), aka the ends justifies the means. Either way, Nextdoor is knowingly enabling this immoral behavior by doing nothing to stop it, remember this isn’t breaking news hot off the presses, it’s been going on all over social media including Nextdoor for a long time.
In my opinion, the person that reported the comments discussed above is a…
In my opinion, Nextdoor moderation, especially for the DeForest, WI Community is thoroughly corrupted and allowing LIARS to bastardize their moderation.
Post Publication Addition
If Nextdoor what’s to correct this issue, then here’s what they have to do; because this was a flagrant and repetitive violation of free speech rights, all of the people on Nextdoor that falsely reported the comments I discussed above as “misinformation” should be immediately and permanently banned from Nextdoor. All of the moderators that voted to remove the comments and subsequently suspend my sister should have their moderator credentials completely stripped and never given such power again, if they are users, they should be banned. This kind of flagrant censoring of free speech needs to be completely squashed and the violators need to be the poster children for what NOT to do!
Society's Building Blocks 
5 thoughts on “Moderation in Nextdoor Deforest, WI Community Has Been Thoroughly Corrupted!”