Ugh. Those things increase recidivism and violate fundamental concepts of justice by not allowing people to ever 'serve their debt to society'. If I can pass someone by on the sidewalk or walk by their house, I don't see why they should be banned from talking to me on such a network.
If they're released, it generally implies they no longer pose a threat, and are monitored if not the case.
http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-...
>Assuming those people are actual, proven, and unanimously agreed upon sex offenders
How do you prove this to the computer? Have a representative manually handle every case with a sex offender to see if someone is too perverted to join their network? Surely that's a PR nightmare. "Well he had sex with a 17 year old girl, so we're fine with him joining. But a 10 year old boy, that's where we draw the line."
The list of sex offenders is more than just a list of child molesters. Public urination or indecency and anything in between goes on there. All of them are bad to a certain degree, some of them terrible. But if someone has served their time, we should not continue punishing them, but give them a chance to reform.