The Free Data Buffet Is Over: If Our Content Creates Value, We Should Share in It

A while ago, I started a petition asking a fairly simple question:

If Nextdoor can create economic value from information neighbors provide, why shouldn't the neighbors who provide it participate in that value?

Today, I'm expanding the question.

This isn't only about Nextdoor anymore.

It's about social media platforms, websites, apps, advertising networks, and other digital businesses that collect information about what we read, click, search, recommend, review, discuss, and buy.

My message is becoming simpler:

Our information isn't free anymore.

At least, I don't think it should be.

We Keep Supplying the Raw Material

Think about what people give digital platforms every day.

We write reviews. We recommend restaurants. We tell neighbors which plumber showed up on time. We answer questions. We upload photographs. We comment. We click. We search. We like things. We tell platforms what interests us.

Then there's the less obvious information: cookies, device identifiers, IP addresses, browsing activity, clicks and other event data.

These aren't all legally or technically the same thing, and different privacy laws and platform agreements govern how different types of information may be collected and used. I'm not claiming that placing a cookie on my browser magically means somebody owes me a royalty check.

I'm making an argument about economic value.

Because individually, one click may be almost meaningless.

Multiply those clicks, posts, recommendations, and behavioral signals across millions of people, however, and suddenly we're talking about an extremely valuable resource.

Nextdoor Makes the Point Particularly Well

Nextdoor increasingly describes itself in terms of neighbor-generated knowledge. Its 2025 Transparency Report described the platform as containing “neighbor-generated content and locally relevant information,” while Nextdoor's newer AI-powered Ask product draws upon nearly 15 years of conversations among verified neighbors. Nextdoor

That's valuable.

And who created those conversations?

Neighbors did.

Nextdoor built the platform.

Nextdoor paid engineers.

Nextdoor created the infrastructure.

Nextdoor developed the advertising business.

Nextdoor has every right to try to build a profitable company from those investments.

But neighbors supplied an enormous amount of the raw material that makes the platform useful.

Nextdoor itself says almost 30% of its content consists of organic recommendations and has talked about tens of millions of “Faves” associated with millions of businesses. Nextdoor Blog

That's nothing.

Cookies Are Part of the Bigger Conversation

The same principle makes me think differently about tracking.

Nextdoor's own data-processing documentation identifies things such as cookie IDs or similar identifiers, IP addresses, user-agent information, and event data such as clicks or installs among categories of personal data involved in certain advertising-related processing. Nextdoor Legal

Again, this isn't uniquely a Nextdoor issue.

It's an internet issue.

We've spent years becoming accustomed to clicking:

ACCEPT ALL COOKIES

Maybe we should start thinking more carefully about what we're accepting and what companies receive in return.

If information about my behavior helps improve targeting, train recommendation systems, develop products, measure advertising, build audiences or otherwise contribute to commercial value, I think it's reasonable to have a larger conversation about what the person generating that information receives in return.

Welcome Back to My Very Lonely Petition 😂

My petition hasn't exactly become the Boston Tea Party of user-generated data.

Last time I checked, it had one signature.

Mine.

😂

I already know what that guy thinks.

But perhaps my original message was too focused on Nextdoor.

Because this question is much bigger.

My updated message isn't:

Destroy social media.

It isn't:

Stop using the internet.

And it certainly isn't:

Companies shouldn't make money.

It's this:

If our participation creates commercial value, let's start talking about sharing that value.

That could take many forms.

Direct compensation for opt-in research. Contribution credits. Subscription benefits. Revenue-sharing pools. Advertising credits. Payments for particularly valuable content. Rewards for reviews or recommendations that generate measurable commercial activity. Stronger controls over commercial reuse. Clear choices about whether content can be used to develop AI products.

I don't pretend to have the perfect economic model.

That's what the conversation is for.

Until Then, We Can Stop Supplying Some of the Commodity

That's the other part of my petition.

Participation is voluntary.

If I don't like the economic arrangement, I can reconsider what I voluntarily contribute.

That doesn't mean withholding information about a missing child, dangerous weather, a lost pet, a fire, an emergency, or something that could protect another person.

Human safety comes before my argument about data economics.

I'm talking about the routine commercial material platforms benefit from:

Which roofer should I hire?

What's the best restaurant nearby?

Who installed your HVAC system?

Would you recommend this dealership?

Which insurance company do you use?

Every answer adds another tiny piece to a valuable database.

Maybe we should stop automatically assuming that contribution costs $0.00.

The Internet Made Us the Product, the Customer and the Workforce

That's what fascinates me.

We can simultaneously be the audience viewing advertisements, the customer purchasing products, the creator producing content, and the source generating behavioral data.

That's an extraordinary business model.

For the companies.

Maybe it's time users become more conscious participants in the economics too.

And I'm not suggesting that users automatically have a legal right to payment for everything they post or every cookie generated. Platform terms, privacy laws, and individual choices matter.

I'm saying something much simpler:

We can ask for a different deal.

Nextdoor, You're Still My Test Case

Nextdoor remains particularly interesting to me because its product depends so heavily on what neighbors know.

Without neighbors, there are no neighbor recommendations.

Without neighbors, AI has no years of neighborhood conversations to search.

Without neighbors, there are no local experiences to organize.

Without neighbors, advertisers have far less reason to want access to those neighborhoods.

Nextdoor says it wants every voice to have value. Nextdoor Business

Great.

Let's talk about the economic value too.

Nextdoor built the container.

Neighbors keep filling it.

So I'm Updating the Invitation

To Nextdoor.

To social-media companies.

To websites.

To apps.

To companies collecting behavioral information.

And, most importantly, to the people creating all of it:

Stop thinking of your digital activity as automatically worthless simply because nobody has historically written you a check for it.

Ask what you're providing.

Ask how it's being used.

Read the privacy controls.

Decline unnecessary tracking when you prefer not to.

Think before voluntarily providing another commercially useful recommendation, review, or piece of content.

And if enough people decide the current exchange isn't good enough?

Companies will have an incentive to offer a better one.

My petition may still have only one signature.

That's okay.

Every movement has a first person willing to look slightly ridiculous standing there alone.

I'm already bald. I've survived worse. 😂

Our information has value.
Our content has value.
Our recommendations have value.
Our attention has value.
Our time has value.

The question isn't whether digital companies should be allowed to create value.

The question is whether the people supplying so much of the raw material should be part of it.

I think that's a conversation worth having.

👉 Sign the petition: https://c.org/GkNWmffgg9

👉 Follow the continuing case study: NielFlamm.com/blog

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.