Day 63: If the Rules Aren’t Consistent, Are They Really Rules?
It's Day 63, and this morning while continuing my study of the Nextdoor app, I found another example that has me questioning its moderation model.
A neighbor posted:
“Not to get political, but I keep hearing about this runoff happening next week and I am so torn on the candidates. Does anyone have any thoughts?”
Whenever something begins with “Not to get political…”, we can probably guess where it's headed.
Politics.
And that's exactly what happened.
Neighbors discussed candidates, political parties, voting choices, and opinions. Some users even pointed out:
“We can't talk politics on this site.”
Another wrote:
“Not the place for politics. PLEASE STOP.”
Yet, approximately nine hours after the original post, it was still there.
Here's my moderation question.
Nextdoor permits certain local political discussions, but restricts broader national politics.
This discussion involves a U.S. Senate seat. South Carolina voters elect the senator statewide, but that person then goes to Washington to vote on national legislation and policy.
So where's the line?
Is a U.S. Senate race local because the candidates campaign within South Carolina?
Or national because the winner becomes one of 100 U.S. senators?
More importantly:
Do Nextdoor's moderators agree on the answer?
That's the larger issue I've been documenting.
A moderation system is only as effective as its consistency, training, quality assurance, and enforcement.
If Moderator A removes something while Moderator B leaves essentially the same content up for nine hours—or indefinitely—the policy isn't producing consistent outcomes.
That's not merely a neighbor problem.
That's a process problem.
And when moderation relies heavily on unpaid neighbors making judgment calls about other neighbors, quality control becomes incredibly important.
I've said it before:
We inspect what we expect.
So who's inspecting the moderators?
Who's measuring agreement between them?
Who's auditing incorrect removals—and incorrect decisions to leave content up?
What are the accuracy metrics?
These aren't rhetorical questions. I'd like to see the data.
I've been asking questions about Nextdoor's research, moderation, communication, and accountability for 63 days.
Maybe this post complies with Nextdoor's rules. If so, explain why.
Maybe it doesn't. If so, why was it still there nine hours later?
Either answer would be useful.
What isn't useful is having policies whose enforcement appears unpredictable depending on the moderator, neighborhood, or day.
Day 63. Another post. Another moderation question.
And somehow, still no Jacob Chavis.
Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog. Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear your perspective.
Day 62: What Do Nextdoor’s Partners Think?
It's Day 62.
I'm not surprised.
And somehow, I'm still surprised.
Sixty-two days since I requested a study from Jacob Chavis without receiving the study—or a response.
62 days. Unbelievable.
Yesterday I wrote about Nextdoor reposting content from Groundworks Commercial. Since Jacob seems to have vanished from the Insights landscape—perhaps abducted by aliens 👽—I've started watching what Nextdoor is publishing.
Something is interesting about reposts.
When Nextdoor publishes its own LinkedIn content, comments are typically disabled.
When Nextdoor reposts someone else's content, the original post's comments may remain available.
And, well...
I do what I do.
I commented on the Groundworks Commercial post about my experience with Nextdoor.
Then last night, I noticed Josh Jones from Groundworks Commercial viewed my LinkedIn profile.
Hello, Josh. 👋
I'm genuinely curious:
What do you think about all of this?
Not just Josh, either.
That has me thinking about Nextdoor's broader network of partners.
Nextdoor works with businesses, advertisers, local organizations, news outlets, government agencies, and other companies.
Those organizations lend something besides money or content.
They lend their names.
So what are decision-makers at these organizations seeing?
Do they look only at Nextdoor's WAU, advertising opportunities and neighborhood reach?
Do they examine the moderation controversies?
Do they look at how critical feedback is handled?
Do they notice comments are disabled on corporate posts?
Do they examine how small businesses experience the platform?
Do they care how shareholders are treated?
And does corporate culture factor into deciding whether another organization wants its brand associated with Nextdoor?
I'm not suggesting Groundworks Commercial—or any Nextdoor partner—agrees with my views.
I have no idea what Josh thinks.
That's why I'm asking.
But partnerships work both ways.
When two brands associate publicly, each company's reputation becomes part of the other's equation.
I've spent 62 days asking questions on Nextdoor.
Maybe there's another group worth asking:
What do Nextdoor's partners think?
Local news organizations.
Small businesses.
Advertisers.
Corporate partners.
Public agencies.
What are their experiences behind the scenes?
After 62 days, I'm increasingly interested not only in what Nextdoor says about itself...
but what organizations doing business with Nextdoor say about Nextdoor.
Josh, since you stopped by my profile, I'd welcome your perspective.
And if anyone from another Nextdoor partner is reading this, yours too.
Day 62. The conversation keeps getting bigger, even if Nextdoor isn't participating.
Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.
Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear your perspective.
Sarah, Where Did the Post Go?
I've been documenting my experience with Nextdoor for more than 60 days.
I've posted on LinkedIn, Bluesky Social, X, and NielFlamm.com/blog. I've emailed Nextdoor and posted replies on accounts associated with the company—including co-founder Sarah Leary.
Why?
Exposure and reach.
One place I haven't had the same conversation is, ironically, Nextdoor itself. From my experience, negative feedback about the platform isn't exactly welcomed there.
Then There Was Sarah's X Post
Sarah isn't a big poster on @X. Her most recent post, as far as I can tell, is from March 19, 2026, and discusses a Hertz failure at FLL.
Oh, the irony.
There was also an older post involving a Boston neighborhood—possibly Beacon Hill—snow, and some neighborhood observations.
That became one place where I regularly posted updates about my dissatisfaction with Nextdoor.
The last time I looked, it had at least 175 replies.
I'd estimate 150 or more were mine.
Yes, that's a lot.
I posted about the unanswered study request, moderation, communication, leadership, corporate culture, verification, and shareholder value.
Then yesterday I noticed:
The post was gone.
Did Sarah delete it?
Did X remove it?
Was it simply an old post she decided to delete?
Or did 150+ replies from one dissatisfied shareholder become inconvenient?
I don't know.
That's why I'm asking.
So, I Found Another Post
Since that post disappeared, I've moved along.
I'm now leaving updates on another post on Sarah's X account from January 28, 2025.
Is it ideal?
Nope.
It's a repost from Nirav Tolia about X/Twitter and his apparently being on the platform for 20 years.
Congratulations, Nirav.
I'll get you a ribbon. 🎀
This isn't related to my questions, but when feedback places disappear, I'll work with what's available.
Now I'm curious:
How long will this post remain on Sarah's page?
If that one disappears too, I'll notice.
And I'll probably write about it.
Sarah, Why Did the Post Disappear?
If Sarah deleted it herself, I'd genuinely like to know why.
Was it because of my replies?
Was it simply because the post was old?
Was it completely unrelated to me?
There's a perfectly reasonable answer:
I don't know.
But that's been the recurring theme of this Nextdoor experience.
When leaders don't communicate, people are left trying to understand the reasons.
Deleting a post doesn't delete the questions.
Blocking someone doesn't eliminate feedback.
Disabling comments doesn't create agreement.
And refusing to engage doesn't make the conversation disappear.
It just moves somewhere else.
This time, it moved to Sarah's January 28, 2025 post.
And it continues here.
So, Sarah:
Why did the original post disappear?
And now...
How long will this one stay?
Comments and feedback are welcome here.
Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.
Day 61: A Rising Stock Doesn't Erase the Questions
It's Day 61.
While NXDR is up for the week, as I'm writing this it's down approximately $0.02 today.
Perhaps some short-term players are taking profits. Perhaps it's ordinary market movement. I don't pretend to know why someone else presses sell.
But I'm watching.
While I've been bearish on Nextdoor, I'm also a shareholder. I benefit when NXDR rises. I'd rather be writing about a company delivering undeniable value than explaining why I continue questioning its direction.
My concerns aren't based on one red trading day—or one unanswered email.
They're cumulative.
From my perspective, several leadership decisions under CEO Nirav Tolia deserve scrutiny.
I've questioned the investment in an elaborate new Dallas headquarters while the company continues reporting a GAAP net loss.
I've questioned a strategy that appears to ask some small businesses to pay additional money to respond to potential customer leads.
I've questioned a moderation model dependent on unpaid neighbors while seeing examples that make me wonder about consistency and quality control.
I've questioned a platform built around community and conversation while Nextdoor's corporate LinkedIn presence doesn't permit comments and Nirav has blocked me on LinkedIn.
I've tested Nextdoor's identity/address verification myself and raised questions about whether reality matches the rhetoric surrounding "trust."
And, of course...
It's Day 61 since I requested a study from Jacob Chavis.
No study.
No explanation.
No acknowledgment.
That has become less about Jacob and more about leadership.
I've contacted Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary, Investor Relations, Communications, and others.
At some point, accountability travels upward.
A CEO doesn't personally answer every email, moderate every neighborhood, or respond to every shareholder.
I understand that.
But a CEO does own the culture and direction of the organization.
That's the distinction.
I don't know what's happening internally at Nextdoor, and I won't pretend I do.
I'm documenting what I can observe and asking whether these decisions create sustainable value.
NXDR can rise 5%, fall 2%, or trade sideways tomorrow.
The ticker tells us what the market thinks the company is worth at a particular moment.
It doesn't tell us whether today's leadership decisions are right for the next five years.
That's the conversation I'm interested in.
I'm watching leadership, execution, culture, communication, moderation, monetization, and shareholder value much more closely than today's ticker.
Day 61. Still watching. Still asking.
Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.
Leave some feedback—I'd genuinely like to hear what you think.
Day 58: Trust Is the Foundation—But How Strong Is the Verification?
It's Day 58.
At some point, I have to wonder whether my continued attempts to engage Nextdoor have actually made their way into a C-Suite conversation.
"What are we going to do about this guy?"
"Don't engage."
"Don't respond."
Or maybe nobody has discussed it at all.
I genuinely don't know.
Who wants to spill the tea? ☕
While posting about a free mystery movie screening in Las Vegas—link is on NielFlamm.com/blog—I came across another post from CEO Nirav Tolia on X.
Nirav discussed a decision Nextdoor made approximately 15 years ago: requiring real names and verifying physical addresses.
His central point was:
"Trust was always going to be the foundation for Nextdoor's community."
He also wrote that Nextdoor asks people to verify who they are and "stand behind what they said."
That's a compelling message.
There's just a problem.
My own experiment suggests the verification system isn't nearly as airtight as that rhetoric makes it sound.
I previously tested Nextdoor's verification process using a pseudonym—a play on Nirav's own name—and a corresponding email account.
I was able to establish an account that did not represent my actual name or residence.
I'm deliberately not going to publish step-by-step instructions for bypassing Nextdoor's verification. The point isn't to teach people how to exploit it.
The point is that I was able to do it.
That matters when the CEO publicly describes verified identity and physical address as the foundation of trust.
It raises questions I'd like Nextdoor to answer:
How frequently does Nextdoor audit its verification system?
How does it identify accounts that successfully pass verification using inaccurate information?
What happens when location-based verification conflicts with actual residency?
And what quality controls exist around newly established addresses where third-party verification data may be limited?
Those questions aren't attacks.
They're exactly the questions I believe a company should be asking itself when trust is part of its value proposition.
I have plenty of time to think about these things.
And since I'm now on Day 58 without receiving the study or having the conversation I've repeatedly requested, I've spent some of that time examining the platform instead.
That's the irony.
Nextdoor talks about people standing behind what they say.
I'm standing behind what I'm saying.
I'm asking Nextdoor to do the same.
Trust isn't created because a CEO says it's foundational on a podcast.
Trust is created when the product, policies, and actions support the claim.
So, Nextdoor: rather than another Day 59, how about a conversation?
Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog. Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear your perspective.