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

I Have a Radical Idea: If Our Information Has Value, Maybe We Should Get Paid for It

Hear me out.

While doing my usual posting reach this morning, I came across a LinkedIn clip featuring Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia.outine

Apparently, Nirav is back on the podcast prowl.

Maybe it's because NXDR has been having a better stretch lately. Maybe not. I can't know the reason, so I'll leave that one alone.

But something Nirav said caught my attention.

He talked about Nextdoor having 16 years of local knowledge and using AI to package that information into something resembling a neighborhood version of ChatGPT. He emphasized that the information comes from real, verified neighbors and said:

“We have the distribution, we have the unique content.” LinkedIn

That's when a radical idea popped into my head.

What if the neighbors started thinking of that “unique content” as ours?

Who Created Those 16 Years of Local Knowledge?

Nextdoor built the platform.

I'll give them that.

They built the technology. They maintain the infrastructure. They developed the distribution. They attracted advertisers. They employ people. They have shareholders—including me—who expect the company to create value eventually

.

But who created those 16 years of neighborhood knowledge Nirav is talking about?

Neighbors did.

We wrote the restaurant recommendations.

We answered:

“Does anybody know a good plumber?”

We explained which mechanic we trusted.

We posted about missing dogs.

We recommended roofers.

We warned people about road closures.

We answered questions about neighborhoods.

We reviewed local businesses.

We told everyone where to find the best pizza.

We debated whether that sound was fireworks, gunshots, or somebody dropping a refrigerator.

And, of course, we conducted thousands upon thousands of neighborhood investigations into the most important issue facing America:

Whose dog left that poop?

😂

Individually, those posts may seem insignificant.

Collectively?

Apparently they're 16 years of unique local knowledge valuable enough to become part of Nextdoor's AI strategy.

Nextdoor itself describes its newer Ask experience as providing summarized recommendations from neighbors. Nextdoor

That changes the way I think about what neighbors are contributing.

Maybe We Should Take Our Information Back

I'm not suggesting people literally own every fact, recommendation, or conversation once it's posted online; the legal rights around platform content are governed by the service's terms and applicable law.

I'm talking about something different:

Recognizing the economic value of our participation.

If my recommendation helps create a dataset that makes Nextdoor more valuable, my recommendation has value.

If I spend five minutes answering another neighbor's question, my time has value.

If thousands—or millions—of neighbors do that repeatedly for years, the resulting body of information has enormous potential value.

That's essentially what makes a network like Nextdoor useful.

Without neighbors contributing information, what's left?

A very sophisticated map with advertisements.

Think About Market Research

Companies routinely pay people to participate in research.

Focus groups.

Consumer panels.

Product testing.

Surveys.

Interviews.

Why?

Because people's experiences, preferences, and opinions have value.

Someone asks:

“Which home insurance company do you use?”

That's data.

“Would you consider switching?”

Data.

“Who's the best plumber around here?”

Data.

“Which restaurant has the best burger?”

Data.

“Which contractor would you never hire again?”

Data.

When I participate in a formal market-research study, somebody may compensate me because my time and opinion are part of the product being created.

But when neighbors collectively produce years of incredibly specific hyperlocal information?

We call that engagement.

Interesting distinction.

Maybe There Should Be a Neighbor Dividend

Now we're getting radical.

What if platforms found ways to share some of the economic value created from user contributions?

It doesn't necessarily have to mean Nextdoor sends me $1.37 every time I recommend a Chinese restaurant.

Although I'm listening, Nirav.

😂

Imagine contribution credits.

Premium-feature credits.

Advertising credits for neighbors who own businesses.

Revenue-sharing pools for certain commercial uses of community-generated insights.

Opt-in research panels where neighbors are compensated when their responses are packaged into commercial research.

Or even a clearly defined rewards program recognizing people whose contributions consistently create useful information.are worth exploring.

Plenty of models

The principle is more interesting than any specific mechanism:

If community-generated knowledge becomes a commercial asset, should the community participate in the value it creates?

That's a conversation I'd love to have.

Because Nextdoor Is Monetizing the Network

There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Nextdoor is a business.

I'm a shareholder. I want Nextdoor to make money.

Nextdoor sells advertising products to businesses and has expanded its commercial offerings over the years. Its newest small-business initiatives include free Business Pages and forthcoming feed participation, while Opportunity Alerts is explicitly a paid product that routes requests from verified neighbors to local service providers. Nextdoor

That's a business model.

But look at what's happening economically.

A neighbor asks:

“Does anybody know a good landscaper?”

The neighbor created the demand signal.

Other neighbors may create recommendations.

Nextdoor owns the platform where the interaction occurs.

And now a local service provider can pay Nextdoor for an opportunity to respond quickly to that demand. Nextdoor

Again, that's not inherently improper.

But it's certainly worth examining.

Because the small business is potentially paying.

The advertiser is paying.

Nextdoor is monetizing.

And the neighbors generating the underlying conversation?

They're providing the raw material.

So Who Is Squeezing Whom?

I've already provided plenty of feedback about what I see as Nextdoor increasingly squeezing small businesses for revenue.

To be fair, Nextdoor also provides free business tools, and the company says businesses can claim a Business Page at no cost. Nextdoor

But the company is simultaneously building more ways to monetize access to neighborhood demand.

Now Nirav is talking publicly about another incredibly valuable asset:

16 years of local knowledge.

Our knowledge.

Our conversations.

Our recommendations.

Our questions.

Our experiences.

Our time.

If Nextdoor's future AI products become more valuable because they can package years of neighbor-generated knowledge, I think neighbors have every right to ask:

What's our part of the value equation?

“We Have the Unique Content”

I keep coming back to that phrase.

“We have the unique content.” LinkedIn

From a corporate perspective, I understand exactly what Nirav means.

Nextdoor has accumulated something competitors can't easily recreate: years of geographically specific conversations from people connected to actual neighborhoods.

That's potentially a formidable competitive advantage.

But from the neighbor's side, I hear something else:

We created the unique content.

Nextdoor collected it.

Organized it.

Distributed it.

Stored it.

And now AI may make it dramatically easier to extract value from it.

That's why I think the conversation needs to evolve beyond:

“Isn't this a cool AI feature?”

It should also include:

Who created the knowledge?

How is it being used?

How transparent is that use?

Who benefits financially?

Should contributors share in any of that benefit?

Those are much more interesting questions.

Maybe Our Posts Aren’t Free Raw Material

For years, social media trained us to think the transaction was simple:

We get a free platform.

The platform gets our attention.

Advertisers pay for access to that attention.

Fair enough.

AI complicates that bargain.

Our contributions aren't merely something displayed between advertisements anymore.

Years of human conversations can become a knowledge base from which new products are created.

That's different.

And if platforms increasingly treat human-generated information as an asset that can power AI products, perhaps users should increasingly treat their contributions as assets too.

My time isn't worthless because I typed it into an app.

Neither is yours.

Here's My Radical Idea

Nextdoor wants authentic human knowledge.

Neighbors have it.

Nextdoor wants unique local content.

Neighbors create it.

Nextdoor wants businesses to pay to reach neighborhood demand.

Neighbors generate much of that demand.

Nextdoor wants AI to package years of community knowledge into something increasingly useful.

Neighbors spent 16 years building that knowledge base.

So perhaps the next evolution of the neighborhood network shouldn't simply be:

How can Nextdoor monetize neighbors more effectively?

Maybe it should also be:

How can neighbors participate in the value they're helping create?

Pay us for opt-in research.

Reward valuable contributions.

Create meaningful incentives.

Give people greater visibility and control over how their contributions feed commercial products.

Experiment with revenue sharing.

Treat neighbors not merely as users, but as participants in the economic ecosystem.

Because there's an uncomfortable irony in squeezing small businesses for more revenue while simultaneously discovering new ways to extract value from the knowledge neighbors contribute.

The AI Revolution Might Change More Than Search

Nirav may be right that Nextdoor possesses something enormously valuable in an AI world.

AI can summarize the internet.

But Nextdoor potentially has something different:

Hyperlocal human experience.

That's valuable.

Very valuable.

Which is exactly why neighbors should start thinking differently about it.

The next time an app asks:

“Can anyone recommend a good roofer?”

Maybe don't just think:

"I'll help my neighbor."

Think about this too:

I'm contributing another piece to a commercial knowledge network.

Helping your neighbor and understanding the economic value of your contribution aren't mutually exclusive.

Our information has value.

Our experiences have value.

Our recommendations have value.

And our time has value.

If Nextdoor's future is built on 16 years of knowledge from real neighbors, maybe the neighbors who created that knowledge deserve a seat at the table when its value is realized.

Now that would be a radical neighborhood conversation.

Read the continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog.