A Correction—and an Apology to Sarah Leary

I've spent more than 70 days publicly questioning Nextdoor, its leadership, and what I see as failures in communication and accountability.

So accountability has to work both ways.

Sarah Leary, I owe you an apology.

On August 14, 2026, I publicly questioned what happened to an X post on Sarah's account after I could no longer find it.

I noticed it was missing the day before.

It was the Beacon Street snow post where I had left numerous comments documenting my ongoing experience with Nextdoor—the company Sarah co-founded with Nirav Tolia.

At the time, I couldn't find the post.

I questioned whether Sarah had deleted it and whether my numerous Nextdoor comments had anything to do with its disappearance.

Well...

As of August 24, 2026, the post is there.

I can see it.

And yes, I've commented on it again on Nextdoor.

So what happened?

I don't know.

Maybe it was an X glitch.

Maybe its visibility temporarily changed.

Maybe it disappeared and returned.

Or maybe I didn't see it when I searched for it.

And that's the important part:

I don't know.

I’ve raised concerns about Nextdoor's communication, transparency, and accountability.

I can't demand those standards from a company and then exempt myself when I may have made a mistake.

My observation at the time was straightforward:

I couldn't find the post.

But suggesting Sarah personally removed it went beyond what I could actually establish.

There's a difference between:

“The post appears to be gone.”

and

“Sarah deleted the post.”

I should have maintained that distinction.

So, Sarah:

I apologize for stating or implying that you deleted the post when I didn't have evidence to support that.

That's on me.

This correction doesn't change my broader questions about Nextdoor. I'm still waiting for the detailed research I've requested. I still have questions about communication, moderation, verification, monetization, and leadership.

And I'll continue documenting those issues.

But this particular issue deserves a correction without a bunch of qualifications attached to the apology:

The Beacon Street post is there.

I don't know why I couldn't see it before.

I shouldn't have attributed its disappearance to Sarah without knowing what happened.

Accountability doesn't mean much if it only travels in the convenient direction.

If I expect Nextdoor and its executives to acknowledge mistakes, I have to be willing to do the same.

So, Sarah, sincerely:

My apologies.

And yes...I've already returned to the Beacon Street post to continue commenting about that company you and Nirav co-founded.

I said I was apologizing.

I didn't say I was retiring. 😏

Follow the continuing Nextdoor story at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Day 69: The Experiment Has Changed

For 68 days, the story was simple:

I asked Nextdoor for detailed research. Nextdoor didn't answer.

Then something finally happened.

Nextdoor Communications responded.

So Day 69 isn't another "Nobody answered me" post.

The experiment has changed.

Now I have something arguably more interesting to examine:

What happens when a company answers the question you didn't ask?

Communications sent me links to the two publicly available Nextdoor blog posts and explained that they didn't believe a response was necessary because the studies were already public.

Except Nextdoor's own language creates a problem with that explanation.

The Financial Advising and Investing post describes itself as a summary highlighting key insights and tells readers interested in the complete findings and detailed data to contact Jacob Chavis.

That's what I've been requesting.

There's a meaningful difference between:

"Here are the highlights."

and

"Here is the underlying detailed research."

If a restaurant menu says, "Ask your server for the dessert menu," and I ask for it, showing me the dinner menu again doesn't fulfill the request.

It proves you heard me.

It doesn't prove you listened.

Hearing Isn't Listening

This distinction particularly stands out to me because I have more than 20 years of Learning & Development experience.

I've been the person standing in front of learners.

I've been the instructional designer building the learning experience.

And I've been the manager responsible for helping others develop the skills to do both effectively.

Across different industries and verticals, I've repeatedly highlighted one deceptively simple concept:

There is a difference between hearing and listening.

Hearing tells you that words reached someone.

Listening requires understanding what was actually communicated—and responding appropriately.

It's a distinction I've taught because it matters in customer service, leadership, sales, management, coaching, and virtually every interaction between two people.

And now I'm watching that lesson play out in real time.

Nextdoor Communications clearly heard me.

They know about my requests.

They know which studies I'm discussing.

They know how to contact me.

They even know about my duplicate-account experiment.

So we've moved beyond:

"Maybe nobody has seen this."

They've seen it.

The question now is:

Did Nextdoor actually listen to what I requested—or has it chosen not to provide it?

Those are two very different things.

If the detailed data isn't available to me, say that.

If it's available only to advertisers or prospective clients, say that.

If Nextdoor has decided not to provide it specifically to me, say that.

If the blog wording overpromises what's available, fix it.

All four answers give me useful information.

Sending me the summary I've already read doesn't.

Day 69 Is About the Gap

Companies spend enormous amounts of money studying customer journeys, employee listening, AI, analytics, sentiment and engagement.

Sometimes the most revealing measurement is much simpler:

Did we answer the question that was actually asked?

That's my Day 69 case study.

Not whether Nextdoor responded.

They did.

Not whether Nextdoor knows who I am.

Apparently, they very much do.

The question is whether a company built around connecting neighbors can close the remarkably small communication gap between:

"Contact us for the detailed data."

and

"Here is the detailed data."

After 69 days, that's the experiment.

And I'm still collecting data.

Full timeline at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Day 68: Nextdoor Finally Responded—Sort Of*

Yes, that's an asterisk next to Day 68.

After more than two months of emails, posts, questions, tags, and wondering whether anyone at Nextdoor would respond, Nextdoor Communications emailed me.

Progress?

Well...sort of.

Their email said:

“We did not find it necessary to respond to your request for the following studies because they are both publicly available.”

They then sent me links to the Home Insurance Insights and Financial Advising and Investing blog posts.

There's just one problem.

Those aren't what I've been requesting.

Nextdoor's own Financial Advising and Investing post says:

“Want to explore the complete findings? This summary highlights key insights from our research, but there's much more to discover.”

It then tells readers seeking detailed data, additional audience segments, and strategic recommendations to contact Jacob Chavis.

That's precisely what I've been doing.

I responded and thanked Communications for reaching out. I'm requesting the complete findings and detailed data—not the blog summaries.

Whether Jacob sends them or Communications sends them doesn't matter to me.

I want what Nextdoor's own blog says readers can request.

Then came another interesting part of their email.

Nextdoor Communications told me this would be the only message they would send from that address and directed future support inquiries elsewhere.

Well, at least after 68 days I've confirmed something:

The Communications inbox works.

And since my research request remains unanswered, I'm not backing away from the underlying question. I'm doubling down on asking for clarity.

Meanwhile, Nurav Tooleyah Has Left the Neighborhood

Remember my experiment testing Nextdoor's verification system?

I created a duplicate account using the intentionally fake name “Nurav Tooleyah.”

Nextdoor Communications specifically mentioned the duplicate account in its email, and the account has now been indefinitely suspended.

Reason:

Duplicate account.

So, credit where it's due: Nextdoor eventually caught it.

But there's another asterisk.

It took more than 68 days.

That's the part that should concern anyone interested in platform trust and safety.

My account was an experiment intended to test the verification process. But imagine someone creating a false identity with genuinely malicious intentions.

How much damage could a bad actor potentially cause in 68 days while appearing to be a verified neighbor?

Could they build trust?

Collect information?

Contact vulnerable neighbors?

Promote a scam?

That's why I've been questioning Nextdoor's verification model.

Eventually catching a fake account is better than never catching it.

But how quickly you detect it matters.

And there's an interesting irony here.

Nextdoor found my duplicate account.

Nextdoor Communications found my email.

Nextdoor Communications found the two blog posts.

After 68 days, I haven't received the detailed research those posts explicitly invite readers to request.

So yes:

Day 68.*

The asterisk matters.

Nextdoor finally communicated.

The fake account finally disappeared.

But the original question remains remarkably simple:

Jacob, could you please share the complete findings and detailed data that Nextdoor tells readers to contact you to obtain?

Full timeline at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Day 66: The Kinder, Gentler Reset Continues

It's Day 66.

Yesterday, I tried something different.

A kinder, gentler reset.

No lengthy email. No dissertation about corporate culture. No recap of the previous 65 days.

I emailed Jacob Chavis and asked for two Nextdoor Insights reports:

The Home Insurance Insights study I've been requesting, and the newly published Financial Advising and Investing study.

Short. Polite. Direct.

Now I'm wondering something beyond my own experience:

Is anyone actually able to obtain the detailed studies referenced on the Nextdoor Blog or LinkedIn?

Nextdoor's latest Insights post directs readers who want the complete report and detailed data to contact Jacob.

So I'd like to hear from someone who has done it.

Did you request one? Did you receive it? How long did it take?

That comparison matters as I examine whether I'm experiencing terrible communication or being treated differently.

Meanwhile, Back at NXDR...

The broader market slid yesterday, and NXDR followed suit.

The stock had been making gains following Nextdoor's Q2 results and was approaching its two-year highs. That enthusiasm appears, at least for now, to have been short-lived.

As a shareholder, I want NXDR to succeed. That's what makes my feedback counterintuitive: financially, I'm rooting for the company I'm criticizing.

I've also noticed E*TRADE now provides additional visibility into options activity, giving investors another interesting data point to watch.

And Then There's the Legal Question

Finding an attorney interested in evaluating a potential discrimination claim isn't as simple as announcing, "Lawyer wanted!"

There's a process.

An attorney would need to determine whether the facts support a viable claim, which law applies, what damages are available, and whether others have experienced comparable treatment.

The same applies to a potential class action. There needs to be an identifiable class with common legal and factual issues.

I'm exploring those questions.

Nextdoor also has substantial cash on hand. Using the figures I've been reviewing—approximately $377.97 million in cash against $27.70 million in debt—that's roughly $350 million net of debt.

But that's not a pot of money automatically available to plaintiffs or attorneys. Any recovery would require an actual viable claim followed by a settlement or judgment.

So I'm not counting imaginary settlement checks or contingency fees.

First comes the simpler experiment.

I sent the polite email.

I asked for the studies Nextdoor tells people they can request.

Now let's see what happens.

And I'd particularly like to hear from anyone who has successfully requested and received a Nextdoor Insights report.

Day 66. Kinder. Gentler. Still documenting.

The complete timeline is at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Day 65: A Reset—But Not of the Clock

It's Day 65 since I originally requested Nextdoor's Home Insurance Insights study.

That clock isn't resetting.

What I'm getting at with a semi-reset is my approach.

I've written plenty. I've sent detailed emails. I've asked questions about communication, leadership, moderation, accountability, and most recently, whether my experience represents differential or discriminatory treatment.

Today, I stripped all of that away.

Simple. Short. To the point.

I sent Jacob Chavis an email requesting two things:

1. The Home Insurance Insights study I've been requesting for 65 days.

2. The full “How Neighbors Approach Financial Advising and Investing” study, which Nextdoor recently published and specifically tells readers to contact Jacob for additional detailed data.

That's it.

No lengthy explanation.

No 65-day history.

No commentary about Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary, Communications, or Investor Relations.

Just two requests.

Now let's see what happens.

Maybe Jacob responds.

Even better, maybe I simply receive both studies, and we can finally put this particular question to rest.

If I don't?

Then the question I've recently raised about discrimination or differential treatment becomes even more interesting to me.

I'm not asserting that unlawful discrimination has occurred. Whether there is a viable legal claim—and whether any broader group has experienced comparable treatment—is something an attorney would need to evaluate based on the facts and applicable law.

So I'll put this out there:

Is there an attorney experienced in discrimination, corporate practices, consumer rights, or shareholder matters who finds this situation worth exploring?

Potentially even whether there's a broader pattern affecting others?

If an attorney believes the facts support an individual or class-action case and is willing to evaluate it on a contingency-fee basis, I'm open to a conversation and, if appropriate, serving as a lead plaintiff.

Reach out.

But I'd much rather have the simpler outcome.

Two studies requested.

One short email.

Let's see if Nextdoor responds.

The reset starts today.

The 65-day clock does not.

Full timeline at NielFlamm.com/blog.