Day 86: Is Nextdoor Laboring? Or Are We Back to Business as Usual?
Labor Day is over.
It's Day 86 of my continuing Nextdoor case study, and after wondering yesterday whether Nextdoor was taking an extended holiday weekend, I checked again today.
I haven't received any communication regarding the two detailed Insights studies I requested.
And NXDR?
As of this writing, it's hovering around the low $2.20s. Market sources were showing roughly $2.24 late this afternoon after Friday's $2.24 close, so the exact number is moving as I write this.
Hey, at least we're talking pennies now.
Is Nextdoor laboring?
I'm still trying to figure that out.
But something Nirav Tolia posted on X on September 3 caught my attention.
“A 2025 Study Found...”
In the post, Nirav wrote:
“A 2025 study found AI-generated fake reviews are now indistinguishable from real ones...”
And immediately I thought:
Here we go again.
A study.
Which study?
Who wrote it?
Where was it published?
What was the methodology?
What was the sample size?
What exactly did “indistinguishable” mean?
This probably sounds familiar to anyone who has followed my 86-day adventure in Nextdoor research transparency.
Here's the interesting part: I looked, and there is identifiable research behind Nirav's statement.
In a Fortune piece published the same day, Nirav identified it more specifically as a 2025 study from Nottingham University Business School.
Peer-reviewed 2025 studies examine AI-generated fake reviews, including a Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services study analyzing 714,016 reviews and finding meaningful linguistic differences between AI-generated fake reviews, human-generated fake reviews, and authentic reviews.
So my criticism isn't:
“The study doesn't exist.”
My question is:
Why not cite it in the original post?
If you're going to use research to establish credibility, give readers enough information to evaluate the research themselves.
Study name. Authors. Publication. Link.
Four things.
Done.
Especially when you're the CEO of a company currently promoting the idea that provenance matters.
That's almost too perfect.
Fake Reviews Didn't Arrive With ChatGPT
Another part of this discussion bothers me.
AI didn't invent fake reviews.
AI made them faster, cheaper, and easier to produce at scale.
Humans have been manipulating reputations for a very, very long time.
In fact, the history is pretty entertaining.
1800s: Walt Whitman anonymously published glowing reviews of his own Leaves of Grass. That's essentially the 19th-century version of creating a burner account and giving yourself five stars.
Early 1900s: Newspapers were already dealing with fabricated information, exaggerated claims, and “fakers.” By 1913, the New York World had established a Bureau of Accuracy and Fair Play partly to address complaints and “stamp out fakes and fakers.”
Pre-internet advertising: Businesses used testimonials and endorsements as marketing tools, creating the same fundamental problem we face today: Is this person recommending the product because they genuinely love it—or because somebody benefits from the endorsement?
Early Internet: Message boards, review sites, and eventually e-commerce let businesses and individuals create accounts and manufacture praise—or attack competitors.
Ironically, Nirav himself co-founded Epinions in 1999, one of the early user-generated review platforms. He now acknowledges that the review economy eventually became vulnerable to manipulation.
2010s: Fake-review businesses became an industry. Businesses could purchase positive reviews, competitors could be attacked with negative ones, and reviewers could operate multiple identities.
2020s: Review farms became increasingly sophisticated. Investigators found coordinated reviewers praising unrelated businesses across countries, with identical reviews sometimes appearing under different names.
Today: Generative AI has dramatically changed the economics. Instead of paying humans to crank out hundreds of reviews manually, someone can rapidly generate enormous quantities of convincing text. Research now shows LLMs can produce deceptive reviews with human-level capabilities, even though researchers can still statistically identify some linguistic differences.
Same scam.
Much better machinery.
Which Brings Me Back to Nextdoor
Nextdoor's current pitch is that verified identity and neighborhood accountability can make recommendations more trustworthy.
That's an interesting strategy.
But verification alone doesn't make an opinion truthful.
A real person can exaggerate.
A verified person can have a grudge.
A real neighbor can recommend their friend's company.
A legitimate customer can receive an incentive.
Two verified neighbors can have completely different experiences with the same business.
And, as I've previously documented, I've had my own questions about how robust Nextdoor's verification system actually is.
So “verified” is a trust signal.
It isn't a magical truth serum.
Provenance Matters? I agree.
That's actually what makes Nirav's post so interesting.
His broader argument is essentially:
Where information comes from matters.
I agree.
Completely.
Which is why when the CEO says:
“A 2025 study found...”
I want the provenance.
Name the study.
Name the researchers.
Link to it.
Let readers inspect it.
And that's precisely what I've been asking Nextdoor to provide regarding its own research.
For 86 days.
Nextdoor published Insights findings.
Nextdoor publicly told readers they could request detailed data.
I requested it.
I've emailed.
I've followed up.
I've expanded the distribution.
I sent another request Saturday.
And I'm still waiting for the two detailed studies.
Day 86
Yesterday was Labor Day.
Today I'm asking:
Is Nextdoor laboring?
Because I'm still doing the work.
Waiting for somebody at Nextdoor to answer the questions.
Nirav's post argues that provenance matters.
On that, we agree.
So here's my Day 86 suggestion:
Practice it.
When you cite research, show us the research.
When Nextdoor publishes research, show us the methodology.
When your own blog tells readers they can request detailed data, provide the detailed data—or explain why you won't.
Because whether we're talking about a restaurant review, an AI-generated recommendation, or a corporate Insights report, the principle is the same:
Don't just tell me to trust it. Give me enough information to decide whether to trust it.
Follow the continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog.
Happy Labor Day — Day 85: Nextdoor, Did You Forget the People Who Do the Work?
Happy Labor Day! 🇺🇸
Today is Day 85 of my continuing Nextdoor case study.
Before I get to Nextdoor, it's worth remembering what today actually represents.
Labor Day isn't simply the unofficial end of summer, a three-day weekend, mattress sales, barbecues or one last trip to the beach.
Labor Day recognizes the contributions and achievements of American workers and the labor movement that fought for better working conditions, reasonable hours, fair wages, and greater protections for working people.
It became a federal holiday in 1894, and more than 130 years later, it's still an opportunity to recognize the people whose work keeps businesses, communities, and this country moving.
Which brings me to Nextdoor.
Hello? Anybody Home?
As of this writing, I haven't seen a Labor Day post on Nextdoor.
Nothing from CEO Nirav Tolia either.
Maybe something will appear later today.
If it does, I'll happily update this post.
But right now?
Crickets. 🦗
And I find that remarkable.
This is a company whose entire identity revolves around neighborhoods, communities, local businesses, and the people who make those communities work.
Teachers.
Nurses.
First responders.
Restaurant workers.
Retail employees.
Construction workers.
Delivery drivers.
Small-business owners.
Landscapers.
Electricians.
Plumbers.
Mechanics.
And, yes, the employees who actually keep Nextdoor operating.
If there were ever a holiday that practically writes itself for a company claiming to be the “essential neighborhood network,” wouldn't Labor Day be it?
Talk About Out of Touch
This isn't about whether every corporation is required to publish a social-media post for every holiday.
Of course not.
It's about awareness and consistency with your own brand.
Nextdoor has plenty to say when there's an opportunity to talk about advertisers.
It has plenty to say about businesses building brand recognition.
It has plenty to say about reaching verified neighbors.
It has plenty to say when there's a new product, advertising opportunity, or monetization strategy to promote.
But Labor Day?
A day specifically recognizing the people who actually do the work in those neighborhoods?
Nothing so far.
From my perspective, that's another example of how out of touch Nextdoor's corporate communications can appear.
And this isn't exactly a surprise holiday.
Labor Day has been on the calendar for a while.
You can even schedule a post.
Nobody needed to abandon the barbecue this morning to log into LinkedIn.
Meanwhile, I Worked Saturday
While Nextdoor was apparently enjoying the holiday weekend, I sent another email on Saturday.
Yes.
Another one.
The subject remains the same issue I've been documenting for nearly three months:
Where are the two detailed Insights studies?
These are the two studies where Nextdoor's own published material told readers they could reach out for additional information, including detailed data, additional audience segments, and strategic recommendations.
I followed the instructions.
I've followed up.
I've clarified that I'm requesting the detailed data—not links to the summaries I've already read.
I've expanded the email beyond Jacob Chavis to include others at Nextdoor who can answer the question.
And now we're at:
Day 85.
At this point, the answer doesn't even need to be complicated.
Yes, Niel, here's the information.
Or:
No, Niel, we're not providing it.
Or:
It's only available to certain customers, advertisers, or partners.
Pick one.
I'll take clarity over silence.
The Irony of Labor Day
Maybe that's what makes today's silence particularly interesting to me.
Labor Day is partly about recognizing the value of people's work.
And one of the themes I've repeatedly raised throughout this case study is whether Nextdoor adequately recognizes the value created by the different people surrounding its platform.
Neighbors create the conversations.
Neighbors provide the recommendations.
Small businesses provide the services.
Employees build and operate the platform.
Advertisers provide revenue.
Investors provide capital.
Every one of those groups contributes something.
A healthy organization understands that relationships with those stakeholders require more than polished marketing language.
They require communication.
Listening.
Trust.
Transparency.
And accountability.
Day 85
So, Happy Labor Day to everyone working today.
Happy Labor Day to everyone fortunate enough to have today off.
Happy Labor Day to the small-business owners who don't really get holidays.
And Happy Labor Day to Nextdoor's employees too.
As for Nextdoor and Nirav Tolia:
Maybe the Labor Day message is coming.
Maybe somebody will answer tomorrow's email.
Maybe I'll finally receive those two detailed studies.
We'll see.
But as of this writing, Day 85 looks remarkably similar to many of the previous 84 days.
.I'm still waiting for somebody at Nextdoor to demonstrate that communication and accountability aren't just words used when they're convenient for the brand.
Happy Labor Day. 🇺🇸
Follow the continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog.
Day 82: Is Nextdoor Taking Another Four-Day Weekend?
It’s Day 82.
I’m still here.
Still reaching users.
Still talking to businesses.
Still raising questions for investors.
Still documenting my disappointment with Nextdoor.
And Nextdoor?
Well, from where I’m sitting, it looks like the company may be sticking to a familiar communications playbook:
It’s Friday before Labor Day weekend. Things have gotten very quiet.
No new post today that I’ve seen from Nextdoor’s corporate communications channels.
Nothing new from CEO Nirav Tolia.
And those two detailed Insights studies I’ve been requesting?
Still nothing.
But I do have some exciting news.
NXDR Is Up a Penny! 🎉
As I write this, NXDR is up approximately $0.01.
Hey, at least it isn’t down.
After 82 days, I’ve learned to appreciate the little things.
One penny at a time, people.
Of course, a penny on one trading day doesn't tell us much about the company's long-term value or investor confidence. What matters is sustained performance and whether management's decisions ultimately create shareholder value.
Will We Hear From Nextdoor on Labor Day?
My guess?
Probably not.
We'll see Monday.
But I have to wonder: how difficult is it for a corporate communications organization to schedule a Labor Day post in advance?
You don't exactly need someone sitting at a desk Monday morning typing:
“Happy Labor Day!”
Schedule it.
Go enjoy the barbecue.
Problem solved.
Then Tuesday arrives.
Maybe we'll get another beautifully polished message about verified neighbors, trusted recommendations, local businesses building brand recognition, and how Nextdoor is strengthening communities.
That's the messaging.
I'm interested in what happens underneath it.
Because the Bigger Questions Are Still Sitting There
How is Nextdoor's increasing monetization of small-business interactions going to affect the businesses that helped create the platform's local value?
Where are the two detailed Insights studies that Nextdoor's own previous blog posts invited readers to request?
How does executive compensation align with sustained shareholder value creation?
When does Nextdoor move from improving its losses to delivering the consistent profitability and value shareholders ultimately expect?
And when does somebody simply say:
“Niel, let's talk.”
That's the part that continues to amaze me.
This Could Have Been Very Different
I've said this before, but it becomes more relevant with every passing day.
If someone from Nextdoor had simply reached out to me almost a year ago, I doubt I would be this invested in documenting accountability today.
Not because they needed to agree with me.
Not because I expected special treatment.
Not because one phone call magically solves every disagreement.
Because somebody would have demonstrated something incredibly basic:
Accountability.
“We hear you.”
“We disagree.”
“Here's why.”
“Here's what we can do.”
“Here's what we can't do.”
That's communication.
Instead, I've spent months documenting what happens when questions linger, communication breaks down and a dissatisfied shareholder becomes increasingly interested in understanding why.
And here we are.
Day 82.
And No, I'm Not Interested in Being a Keyboard Warrior
Somebody reading all of these posts might think:
This guy just likes fighting with people online.
Actually, I'd much rather have a conversation.
In person.
By phone.
By web conference.
I'll even make it pleasant.
Let's Have a Virtual Coffee Date ☕
Anyone from Nextdoor who wants to discuss what I've been documenting is welcome to contact me.
I've provided this information before, and it's available on my website.
Email: niel@nielflamm.com
Phone: (843) 212-6824
Nirav, Communications, Investor Relations, Insights—or someone else at Nextdoor:
Pick up the phone. Send an email. Schedule a video call.
Coffee is on me.
Well, technically, my coffee is on me. Yours is on you.
Enjoy the Weekend
Maybe Nextdoor surprises me Monday.
Maybe there's a Labor Day post.
Maybe someone sends the studies.
Maybe my phone rings.
Maybe NXDR goes up another penny.
At this point, anything is possible.
Because almost a year ago, a conversation might have been enough.
Now we're on Day 82.
The invitation remains open.
Let's talk.
Blocked by a CEO: What Does the Block Actually Say?
I recently wrote about being blocked on X by Nextdoor co-founder and CEO Nirav Tolia.
And after looking at that screen again, I started thinking about the psychology of the block itself.
Not diagnosing Nirav.
Not pretending I know what he's thinking.
Not claiming I've somehow crawled inside his head.
Because I haven't.
But I do find the behavior fascinating.
Why Does Someone Block a Critic?
There could be a dozen explanations.
Maybe Nirav thinks I'm repetitive.
Maybe he doesn't like my approach.
Maybe he doesn't want criticism appearing underneath his posts.
Maybe it's reputation management.
Maybe he considers my comments disruptive.
Maybe he simply decided, I don't want to deal with this guy anymore.
And you know what?
That's his right.
It's his X account. He can block me.
But here's what makes it interesting:
I'm not some random person yelling insults at him. I'm a shareholder asking questions about the company I own shares in.
I've questioned Nextdoor's leadership.
I've questioned executive compensation.
I've questioned the company's communication.
I've questioned moderation and verification.
I've questioned its treatment and monetization of small businesses.
I've questioned its research transparency.
I've questioned whether the strategy is creating sufficient shareholder value.
Those questions aren't disappearing because my account disappeared from Nirav's X feed.
Psychologically, What Does a Block Accomplish?
This is where the subject gets interesting without playing amateur psychologist.
Blocking someone creates a boundary.
It removes an unwanted interaction.
It gives someone greater control over what appears in their social-media environment.
It can reduce exposure to criticism.
It can end an interaction someone no longer considers productive.
And yes, in some circumstances, avoidance can also be a response to uncomfortable information.
Which one applies here?
I have absolutely no idea.
And unless Nirav tells me, no one else does.
That's precisely why I'm not going to call him psychologically insecure, diagnose him as a narcissist, or claim I've discovered some deep emotional wound.
That would be speculation masquerading as analysis.
Instead, I'll stick with something I can actually document:
He blocked me.
And I'll ask what I think is the much more interesting question.
Why?
The Power Dynamic Is Fascinating
Think about the people involved here.
On one side is Nirav Tolia.
Co-founder and CEO of Nextdoor.
Entrepreneur.
Guest Shark on Shark Tank.
Podcast guest.
Public-company executive.
A person with access to corporate communications professionals, investor relations, attorneys, media opportunities and a significant public platform.
On the other side:
Me.
One shareholder.
One blog.
No communications department.
No investor-relations team.
No Business Wire distribution strategy.
Just questions, screenshots, publicly available information, and apparently an impressive amount of persistence.
Yet I'm the one who needed to be removed from the conversation.
I find that fascinating.
Maybe It's Just Reputation Management
There's also an explanation that requires virtually no psychology.
Maybe Nirav simply doesn't want a persistent critic leaving negative comments beneath his public posts.
That's not necessarily insecurity.
It could simply be reputation management.
If that's the explanation, though, it creates another interesting question for me.
Nextdoor is a company whose entire business is supposedly centered around conversation, community, and connection.
The company wants neighbors talking to neighbors.
It wants neighbors recommending businesses.
It wants businesses interacting with communities.
It wants people exchanging opinions.
But what happens when the conversation becomes uncomfortable for the person running the company?
Apparently, at least in my case:
Block.
There's some irony there.
Here's What the Block Doesn't Accomplish
It doesn't change Nextdoor's financial results.
It doesn't increase NXDR's stock price.
It doesn't answer my questions about executive compensation.
It doesn't explain Nextdoor's strategy.
It doesn't resolve my concerns about small-business monetization.
It doesn't provide the detailed Insights data I've been requesting.
It doesn't address my concerns about communication, transparency, or accountability.
And it certainly doesn't increase my confidence in Nextdoor's leadership.
It accomplishes exactly one thing:
I can't interact with Nirav's X account.
Okay.
I'll survive.
The Questions Are Bigger Than an X Account
This is where I think CEOs—and really any leader—face an interesting choice when dealing with persistent criticism.
You can answer it.
You can ignore it.
You can dispute it.
You can explain why it's wrong.
You can provide evidence that contradicts it.
You can even decide that the critic isn't worth your time.
All legitimate options.
But blocking the person doesn't refute the criticism.
And that's why I'm not particularly interested in trying to determine whether Nirav is “thin-skinned.”
I'm interested in whether I'm wrong.
Show me.
If Nextdoor's leadership strategy is working, show shareholders the results.
If the monetization strategy is strengthening the neighborhood experience, show us.
If executive compensation is appropriately aligned with shareholder value creation, explain it.
If my interpretation of Nextdoor's corporate culture is completely wrong, demonstrate why.
If the detailed research I've spent more than 80 days requesting isn't available, just say so.
Those are substantive responses.
A block isn't.
Maybe I Hit a Nerve. Maybe I Didn't.
Could my criticism have annoyed Nirav?
Sure.
Could he simply be tired of seeing my name?
Absolutely.
Could somebody handling his social media presence have decided that blocking me was the easiest solution?
Possible.
Could it be nothing more complicated than “I don't want this guy commenting here anymore”?
Yep.
That's the point.
I don't know why Nirav Tolia blocked me.
But I find the decision fascinating.
I'm a shareholder repeatedly asking uncomfortable questions about leadership, executive compensation, company performance, and shareholder value.
Whether the block represents frustration, reputation management, a personal boundary or simply a desire not to see my criticism, only Nirav knows.
What it doesn't do is answer the questions.
And that's the part that matters to me.
Block away.
Blocked Again: Apparently My Questions Are Getting Through
There are days when you wonder whether anyone is actually paying attention.
Then there are days when you get a message like this:
“@niravtolia has blocked you.”
Well, I guess somebody noticed.
For anyone who hasn't been following this ongoing Nextdoor case study, I have a fairly consistent routine for publishing new content
.
First, it goes on my blog:
Then I work my way through the social-media neighborhood:
LinkedIn. Facebook. Instagram. Threads. Bluesky. Then X—my own page, Sarah Leary's page, Nextdoor's page, and finally Nextdoor co-founder and CEO Nirav Tolia's page.
Why?
Awareness.
I'm not exactly operating with Nextdoor's Communications budget. I don't have a corporate PR department distributing carefully crafted statements through Business Wire.
I have a blog, social media, and persistence.
So I use them.
Then I Got to Nirav's Page...
And there it was.
Blocked. Again.
The screenshot couldn't be much clearer.
I can apparently view Nirav's public posts, but I can't engage with them, follow him, or message him.
It amazes me.
Nirav Tolia is the CEO and co-founder of a publicly traded company. He's an entrepreneur. He's appeared as a guest Shark on Shark Tank. He's been making the podcast rounds discussing leadership, entrepreneurship, AI, community, and the future.
Yet criticism from one small shareholder with a blog apparently warrants the block button.
I don't know Nirav's reason for blocking me, so I won't pretend that I do.
Maybe he thinks I'm repetitive.
Maybe he doesn't like my approach.
Maybe he simply doesn't want my criticism appearing underneath his posts.
But I can't help wondering:
Am I hitting a nerve?
Because something about these questions apparently isn't welcome on his page.
Blocking Me Doesn't Fix Nextdoor
Here's the funny part.
Blocking me doesn't stop any of this.
It doesn't delete my blog.
It doesn't stop LinkedIn.
It doesn't stop Facebook.
It doesn't stop Instagram, Threads, or Bluesky.
It doesn't stop my posts on X.
And it certainly doesn't stop me from continuing to examine Nextdoor.
If anything, I'm more determined.
Because my questions aren't about whether Nirav Tolia likes me.
They're about the company he leads.
I'm a Shareholder. I Get to Ask Uncomfortable Questions.
I continue to question Nextdoor's direction.
I continue to question its communication.
I continue to question its treatment of small businesses.
I continue to question its moderation and verification systems.
I continue to question its research transparency.
And I continue to question executive compensation when shareholders are still waiting for sustained value creation.
I've previously written about Nextdoor's GAAP losses even while some operating metrics have improved. That's an important distinction: the company has made progress in areas such as revenue and adjusted EBITDA, but that doesn't automatically mean I should be satisfied with leadership or shareholder returns.
And yes, I want to know:
How much should a CEO be rewarded when shareholders aren't seeing the value they expected?
That's not personal.
That's corporate governance.
I wouldn't characterize executive compensation as literally “burning through cash for a bonus” unless the numbers establish that connection. But I absolutely believe shareholders should scrutinize how much cash and equity go toward executive compensation and whether the company's performance justifies it.
The Irony Is Spectacular
Nextdoor's entire business is supposedly built around conversation.
Neighbors talking to neighbors.
Businesses talking to neighbors.
Community.
Connection.
Recommendations.
Discussion.
And yet, when a shareholder repeatedly questions the leadership of the company built around conversation...
Block.
There's a lesson in there somewhere.
Especially after everything I've written recently about what looks to me, from the outside, like symptoms of a broken corporate culture:
Poor leadership accountability.
Unclear values.
Low trust and transparency.
Poor communication.
Resistance to feedback.
I don't work at Nextdoor, so I can't tell you what the internal culture is.
But culture eventually becomes visible externally.
And blocking criticism doesn't exactly persuade me that my assessment is wrong.
You Can Block the Account. Not the Questions.
I'm one shareholder.
I'm one user.
I'm one guy writing a blog.
Nirav has every right to decide who interacts with his personal social-media account.
And I have every right to continue examining the leadership and performance of a publicly traded company in which I'm invested.
So I'll keep asking.
Show me.
Show shareholders the results.
Show users the improvement.
Show businesses the value.
Show us that the strategy is working.
Because blocking my X account doesn't answer any of those questions.
It just means I'll have to skip one stop on my social-media publishing tour.
And I've still got plenty of other stops.