Nextdoor Has an AI Day. Maybe It Needs a Communication Day.
I came across an interesting HR Brew article about Nextdoor's HR team dedicating one full day every month to AI experimentation.
Full article:
https://www.hr-brew.com/stories/nextdoors-hr-team-halts-people-work-once-a-month-and-dedicates-the-day-to-ai
First, credit where it's due.
As someone with a Learning & Development background, I like this idea.
Nextdoor Head of People Tony Castellanos told HR Brew that the HR team clears its calendars one day each month—no meetings, interviews, or reports—so employees can experiment with AI and build solutions.
That's experiential learning.
That's giving employees permission to experiment, iterate, and learn.
I can get behind that.
But given everything I've been documenting about Nextdoor, another thought immediately crossed my mind:
Could we dedicate one day to communication?
I've spent more than two months trying to obtain a Nextdoor Insights study from Jacob Chavis.
I've contacted Jacob, Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary, Investor Relations, and Communications.
Then Nextdoor published another Insights report directing readers who want detailed information to—you guessed it—Jacob Chavis.
I followed those instructions again.
Short email. Kinder, gentler reset. Two studies requested.
I'm still waiting.
That's why this article fascinates me.
Nextdoor can pause routine HR work for an entire day each month so employees can explore AI.
Great.
But technology doesn't solve every organizational problem.
Sometimes the solution isn't another AI agent.
Sometimes it's:
"Hey, somebody answer that email."
HR Brew also reports that Nextdoor's "People Brain" reviews content published to public channels to help ensure messaging and policy align with the People team's core content.
Now that makes me curious.
If AI is helping evaluate Nextdoor's public messaging, I'd love to know what it thinks about:
Community without conversation.
Communication posts with comments disabled.
Research advertised as available while requests go unanswered.
A shareholder spending more than two months asking for an answer.
Maybe those aren't AI problems.
Maybe they're leadership and execution problems.
I've repeatedly said I want Nextdoor and NXDR to succeed. I'm a shareholder. Financially, that's in my interest.
AI Days could genuinely improve efficiency.
But innovation shouldn't distract from the basics.
Artificial intelligence is impressive.
Answering an email doesn't require it.
Perhaps alongside AI Day, Nextdoor should try a Communication Day.
I'll volunteer my inbox for the pilot.
Full timeline at NielFlamm.com/blog.
SOULM8TE: AI, Obsession... and a Familiar Story?
SOULM8TE puts a new spin on AI companionship, but while watching it I couldn't shake the feeling that I'd seen this story before.
In my latest movie review, I compare SOULM8TE to Subservience, Her, and especially the 1995 The Outer Limits episode "Valerie 23." Was Blumhouse's latest thriller worth the watch, or did an old TV episode do it better?
🎬 Watch my full SOULM8TE review at:
https://NielFlamm.com/videos/moviereviews
Then check out Valerie 23 and decide for yourself:
Nextdoor’s Identity Question: Community Platform or Data & Advertising Company?
I continue to look more deeply into Nextdoor, not only as a shareholder but also as someone trying to understand its long-term vision, strategy, and execution.
Nextdoor recently released its 2026 Back-to-School Research, which discusses today’s parents, the importance of neighborhoods, local recommendations, and how communities support each other.
On the surface, this aligns with the message CEO Nirav Tolia often shares — building connection, strengthening communities, using AI to improve the neighbor experience, and bringing people together.
I support that mission.
The challenge is that the messaging starts to feel contradictory when compared to other leadership conversations.
In a recent interview, Chief Revenue Officer Michael Kiernan discussed Nextdoor’s future revenue strategy, AI transformation, and new monetization opportunities.
He discussed how Nextdoor has over 110 million people on the platform, and how the company understands neighbors — where they live, their interests, their communities, and how they engage. He also discussed how the “neighborhood graph” could become a monetization asset.
From a business perspective, I understand this.
Nextdoor is a publicly traded company. It has shareholders. It has expenses. It needs sustainable revenue.
Advertising, partnerships, AI efficiency, and new revenue streams are expected parts of running a technology company.
But here is where I continue to ask questions:
Where does the neighbor fit into the equation?
If surveys and neighbor insights are valuable enough to promote to advertisers, partners, and the public, shouldn’t the full research methodology be transparent?
How many people participated?
How were participants selected?
What were the demographics?
What questions were asked?
What was the complete data set?
Today marks Day 22 since I requested the full research information from Jacob Chavis regarding previous Nextdoor studies.
No full study.
No methodology.
No response.
That is where trust becomes difficult.
A company cannot talk about transparency, trust, and an authentic community while also controlling which information neighbors and investors are allowed to see.
The bigger question:
Is Nextdoor a neighborhood platform that creates revenue opportunities by connecting people?
Or is Nextdoor becoming a data and advertising company powered by neighbor activity?
Those are two very different stories.
Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle — but that requires transparency.
Neighbors deserve clarity.
Advertisers deserve clarity.
Shareholders deserve clarity.
Trust is not created through messaging.
Trust is created through actions.
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com.
Day 21: AI Talk vs. AI Execution
Today marks 21 days since I requested the report referenced on blog.nextdoor.com, in which Jacob Chavis of Nextdoor (jchavis@nextdoor.com) was listed as the contact for the full study.
Why did I request it?
Simple.
I wanted to understand the details behind the research:
What methodology was used?
What was the sample size?
What demographics were represented?
How was the data collected?
Basically, is this a meaningful research study or more of a FAMILY FEUD survey board?
It’s now been three weeks.
I’ll give some grace—it is Sunday, the weekend, and right after celebrating the 250th birthday of the United States of America.
However, throughout my career, as a manager and even before moving into leadership roles, responsiveness mattered. I monitored communication through company tools and responded when something required attention.
Now, compare that experience with one I recently had.
I use the Dexcom Stelo CGM to monitor my blood glucose levels. Since I’m not insulin dependent, I don’t qualify for a traditional Dexcom CGM under my UnitedHealthcare requirements, but Stelo helps me manage important health information.
Recently, my sensor session ended 8 days early.
That matters because consistent monitoring helps me understand if my glucose is trending too high or too low.
I had just received my regularly scheduled replacement, so I was able to swap sensors—but that meant I would eventually be short.
What happened next?
I used the Stelo chatbot.
It asked questions.
Created the incident.
Guided me through the process.
I filled out the required information.
Less than 24 hours later, a replacement CGM was on the way.
That made me think:
Why isn’t Nextdoor using AI like this?
A real-time AI assistant could help with:
Neighbors experience issues.
Moderation questions.
Suspension appeals.
Advertiser concerns.
Basic customer support.
Nirav Tolia frequently discusses AI as part of Nextdoor’s future.
The question I continue asking is:
Where is the execution that directly improves the user experience?
Talking about AI is easy.
Implementing AI where customers actually feel the impact is the difference.
Read more and join the discussion at NielFlamm.com
If AI Can Watch My Groceries, Why Can’t It Help Moderate Nextdoor?
One of Nirav Tolia’s favorite topics on the speaking circuit is AI.
That got me thinking.
If AI is such a core part of Nextdoor’s strategy, why isn’t it being used more effectively to improve moderation?
AI isn’t new. I’ve watched it evolve over the past 25 years, and today it’s part of my everyday life.
Take a trip to my local Harris Teeter.
I walk through self-checkout, scan my groceries, bag my items, and leave. Cameras, sensors, and AI are constantly evaluating what’s happening. When something falls outside an expected pattern or decision matrix, the system alerts a human associate to step in.
It’s AI first.
Human review second.
That’s a scalable model.
Now compare that to what I continue to observe on Nextdoor.
The attached example contains snarky comments that remained visible two days after they were posted. This isn’t an isolated example; it’s part of a pattern I’ve documented during my ongoing Nextdoor experiment.
Why isn’t AI identifying conversations that are escalating into personal attacks or unconstructive exchanges and routing them to trained reviewers?
Instead, Nextdoor continues to rely heavily on a decentralized network of unpaid moderators. While many volunteer with good intentions, any moderation system benefits from consistent standards, quality assurance, and ongoing coaching.
To me, the current model feels like the inmates running the prison while the warden sits in the office, removed from the chaos.
If AI can help prevent mistakes at a grocery store checkout, surely it can help create a more consistent and constructive online community.
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com.