Day 123: Nextdoor Talks About AI. What About Election-Year Privacy and Safety?
Election Day is approaching, and I'd like Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia to address something.
We've heard plenty about AI, neighborhood intelligence, and the value of Nextdoor's data. Those are important topics.
But here's a question that deserves just as much attention:
What happens when a neighborhood discussion turns political—and someone with access to sensitive user information decides to misuse it?
Politics can get heated. People disagree. Local moderators try to enforce community rules, but no moderation system can guarantee that every discussion stays civil.
Now consider what makes Nextdoor different from many other social platforms: the connection between accounts and verified neighborhood addresses.
That raises an important question about access, privacy, and accountability.
The Risk Isn't Just What People Post. It's Who Can Access the Data.
Imagine a neighbor gets into a heated political disagreement with someone on Nextdoor.
What if the disagreement escalates beyond comments?
What if someone tries to identify where another person lives, expose their phone number, intimidate them offline, or use private information to retaliate?
I'm not claiming this has happened or that Nextdoor moderators are misusing anyone's information. I'm asking what safeguards exist to prevent it.
If a moderator or someone with platform privileges can access sensitive information tied to verified accounts, what prevents them from abusing that access?
A person's ability to moderate a conversation shouldn't automatically mean they need access to that person's private information.
Nirav, Here's What I'd Like to Know
Access controls: Who can access users' verified addresses, phone numbers, and other sensitive information?
Least privilege: Are moderators restricted to the information they actually need to perform their duties?
Audit trails: Does Nextdoor log and review access to sensitive user information, and can suspicious activity trigger an investigation?
Moderator accountability: What screening, training, and oversight help prevent abuse of moderator privileges?
Reporting and response: If a user suspects their information has been misused, how can they report it, and what protections and response procedures are available?
Election-season readiness: Does Nextdoor have specific procedures for handling political harassment, doxxing, threats, and attempts to take online disputes into the real world?
These aren't accusations. They're basic questions about privacy, security, and risk management.
Verified Addresses Create Responsibility
Nextdoor's neighborhood model depends on connecting people to real communities. That can help make local conversations relevant.
But verification alone doesn't guarantee good behavior.
A verified address is a trust signal—not a guarantee that everyone with access to the platform will act appropriately.
Security has to extend beyond verifying who belongs in a neighborhood. It must also govern who can access sensitive information, why they can access it, and what happens when someone abuses that privilege.
That's especially important when disagreements become personal.
AI Can Wait. Let's Talk About Protecting People.
Nirav, I'm interested in Nextdoor's AI strategy. I'm interested in neighborhood intelligence and how the company plans to become profitable.
But as Election Day approaches, I think privacy and safety deserve a direct conversation, too.
People shouldn't have to choose between participating in their neighborhood and worrying that their personal information could be used against them.
What safeguards does Nextdoor have to protect users when political disagreements get heated—and how does it hold people with privileged access accountable?
I'm not asking Nextdoor to disclose security details that could help someone bypass its protections. I'm asking for a clear explanation of the safeguards, oversight, and reporting procedures that protect its users.
Day 123. I still want Nextdoor to succeed. Protecting the people who make the platform valuable should be part of that success.
👉 Follow my continuing case study at NielFlamm.com/blog
Day 118: Nextdoor Can't Fix What's Broken Until It Admits Something Is Broken
I recently heard an entrepreneur make a statement that stuck with me:
Before a company can fix something, it has to admit something is broken.
That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?
Yet after 118 days documenting my experience with Nextdoor, I have a growing list of issues I'd like to see addressed.
But adding new features, launching advertising products, and promoting neighborhood intelligence won't fix underlying problems.
Let's take a look at what's broken.
1. Communication: A Master Class in How Not to Communicate
For 118 days, I've been requesting detailed Insights research that Nextdoor's own blog posts described as available.
I've emailed. I've followed up. I've expanded my outreach. I've offered to talk by phone, video, or virtual coffee.
I received a response, but not the complete reports I requested.
The problem isn't that Nextdoor must give me everything I ask for. It can tell me the reports aren't available, explain restrictions, or direct me to the appropriate person.
The problem is leaving a straightforward request unresolved.
With more than 20 years of experience in Learning & Development, I've seen the difference between hearing a question and actually addressing it.
Nextdoor has had 118 days to demonstrate that difference.
2. Accountability: Who Owns the Problem?
A simple request shouldn't require a 118-day case study.
Who owns the request? Who is responsible for following up? Who has the authority to resolve it?
If the person receiving a request can't answer it, accountability means making sure it reaches someone who can.
Instead, I'm still documenting the days.
Accountability isn't about finding someone to blame. It's about finding someone responsible for getting the job done.
3. Moderation: Who Holds the Moderators Accountable?
I've repeatedly raised concerns about Nextdoor's moderation model.
Users have publicly described experiences involving inconsistent enforcement, unclear explanations, difficult appeals, and decisions that appear to vary between communities.
I can't independently verify every user's account, and I won't pretend every moderation decision is wrong.
But the broader questions deserve answers:
What training do moderators receive?
How does Nextdoor measure moderation quality and consistency?
What happens when moderators make mistakes?
How can users appeal decisions effectively?
How does Nextdoor identify and address inconsistent enforcement across neighborhoods?
A community platform needs moderation. But moderation without meaningful accountability can undermine the trust it's supposed to protect.
4. User-Generated Content: Who Gets the Economic Benefit?
Nextdoor's neighborhood knowledge is valuable.
Reviews, recommendations, conversations and local experiences help make the platform useful. Nextdoor is now developing products that package neighborhood-level intelligence for advertisers.
I'm a shareholder. I want the company to monetize its competitive advantages.
But I also believe the people supplying valuable content deserve a seat at the table when we discuss how that value is shared.
I'm not claiming every user automatically has a legal right to royalties. Platform terms, privacy laws, and how information is used matter.
I'm asking a broader economic question:
If user contributions help generate commercial value, why shouldn't platforms explore ways for contributors to participate in that value?
That's why I launched my petition calling for a neighbor value-sharing agreement.
👉 Sign it: https://c.org/GkNWmffgg9
5. Transparency: Show Us the Methodology
Nextdoor recently published a neighborhood trust study with The Harris Poll that provided meaningful information about the research methodology.
I applauded that.
It showed that Nextdoor can publish research with useful context about how it obtained the findings.
That's the standard I'd like to see applied consistently.
When a company publishes statistics, promotes research, or uses data to sell advertising, people should understand the methodology behind the claims.
Transparency shouldn't depend on whether the information makes the company look good.
6. Leadership: Blocking Questions Doesn't Resolve Them
Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia has blocked me on X twice, according to my experience.
He's entitled to decide whom he interacts with on social media. Being CEO doesn't obligate him to respond personally to every shareholder.
But blocking me doesn't resolve my questions.
Leadership means establishing a process to address difficult questions, even when the CEO isn't the one answering them.
Disagree with me. Explain why I'm wrong. Delegate the question. Tell me the information isn't available.
Just make sure somebody owns the response.
7. Product Strategy: Stop Adding Before Fixing
Nextdoor keeps announcing new initiatives, including Neighborhood Intelligence and seasonal features like its Treat Map.
Innovation is important. Advertising products may help the company grow revenue.
But there's a difference between adding capabilities and fixing the underlying business.
Can Nextdoor turn its neighborhood knowledge into sustainable profits? Can it improve the user experience? Can it build trust with neighbors, advertisers, and shareholders? Can it establish consistent, accountable moderation?
A growing list of features doesn't automatically mean a healthier business.
Sometimes the best next product improvement isn't another feature. It's fixing the process that already exists.
8. Trust: The Company Has to Practice What It Promotes
Nextdoor recently published research emphasizing the importance of trust and communication in neighborhoods.
I welcomed that report.
But trust is built through repeated actions, not just statements.
When a company promotes trust, people evaluate its communication, moderation, and accountability practices as part of the experience.
That doesn't mean Nextdoor has to agree with every user.
It means its actions should support the principles it promotes.
The First Step Is Admitting There's a Problem
These are the issues I believe Nextdoor should examine:
Communication
Accountability
Moderator training and consistency
The economic value of user-generated content
Research transparency
Leadership's response to difficult questions
Product priorities versus operational improvements
Trust between the platform and its stakeholders
I'm not suggesting you can solve every problem overnight.
I'm suggesting that you can't fix a problem you refuse to acknowledge.
Nextdoor has built something with real potential. It has millions of users, a distinctive neighborhood focus, and information that advertisers may find valuable.
I want that potential to translate into a stronger business.
But before the next big announcement, perhaps leadership should ask a different question:
What needs fixing before we build something else?
Day 118.
I'm still here. I'm still asking questions. And I still want Nextdoor to succeed.
Now, let's start fixing things.
👉 NielFlamm.com/blog
Day 112: Still Waiting
Day 112.
The request hasn't changed.
I'm still asking Nextdoor for the detailed Insights research that its own posts said was available.
I've emailed. I've followed up. I've expanded the audience. I've offered to talk by phone, video, or virtual coffee.
I've received a response, but it doesn't include the complete detailed reports I originally requested.
At this point, the answer doesn't need to be complicated:
Send the reports.
Tell me they're unavailable.
Explain any restrictions.
Or please let me know who can provide them.
Any one of those would end the countdown.
Nextdoor's own recent research emphasizes the importance of trust and communication.
I agree.
So let's communicate.
112 days. One unresolved request.
Maybe Day 113 will be the day.
I've been wrong 112 times so far. 😂
👉 NielFlamm.com/blog
Nextdoor Published a Study About Trust. This Is More Like It.
I have spent a lot of time providing feedback about Nextdoor's Insights reports, so when the company does something substantially better, I think it's important to say so.
Nextdoor's new “The State of Neighborhood Trust” report, produced with The Harris Poll, is much closer to what I've been asking to see.
This looks and reads like an actual research report.
Not simply a blog post with percentages and a statement that more information exists somewhere else.
The report is 24 pages long. It identifies the research partner, describes the sample, discusses methodology, presents findings in context, includes statistical analysis, identifies outside sources, and provides a research contact. Nextdoor Blog
Read Nextdoor and The Harris Poll's full Neighborhood Trust study
Bravo, Nextdoor.
Yes, I actually said that.
Screenshot it before somebody blocks me. 😂
This Is What I've Been Asking For
Nextdoor commissioned the research, and The Harris Poll fielded it in April 2026 among about 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. Respondents came through The Harris Poll's online panel and were weighted to reflect the U.S. adult population. Nextdoor says it then analyzed the findings and conducted statistical modeling examining factors associated with trust and outcomes including safety, belonging, civic participation and reliance on neighbor recommendations. Nextdoor Blog
The accompanying Nextdoor article provides even more methodological detail: the survey was conducted April 16–20 among 1,003 adults, weighting included age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income, education and political affiliation where necessary, and the reported Bayesian credible interval is ±3.8 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. Nextdoor also acknowledges other potential sources of survey error. Nextdoor Blog
That's transparency.
Could there be more?
Sure.
I'd love to see an appendix containing the questionnaire, complete crosstabs and additional demographic breakouts. Since The Harris Poll fielded the survey, it would also be useful to provide a Harris Poll contact or link explaining whether additional demographic information, questionnaires or crosstabs can be obtained.
But that's me asking for the cherry on top rather than wondering where the sundae went.
This report gives readers enough information to begin understanding where the numbers came from and how the research was conducted.
And the Subject Is…Trust
This is where things become particularly interesting given my recent experience with Nextdoor.
The entire report revolves around trust.
One finding says 66% identify friendly day-to-day interactions as something that builds neighborhood trust. Meanwhile, the leading factor respondents identified as weakening neighborhood trust was lack of communication, at 46%. Nextdoor Blog
Read that again.
Lack of communication: 46%.
I've been writing about communication for more than 100 days.
You couldn't script this better.
The study says trust grows through regular opportunities to communicate, interact, and rely on one another. It also says the strongest predictors include how easy people feel reaching their neighbors and how often they actually interact. Nextdoor Blog
That's not my interpretation of what Nextdoor should believe.
That's in Nextdoor's own report.
Then Nirav Tolia Says This
The report includes a statement from CEO Nirav Tolia:
“The difference between a neighborhood and a community is trust.”
That's a powerful statement. Nextdoor Blog
And that's precisely why I can't ignore the contrast with my experience.
Yesterday I discovered that Nirav had blocked me on X.
Again.
For the second time in roughly six months.
I don't know why Nirav blocked me. Only he knows his reason, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
He also doesn't have an obligation to personally engage with every person who comments on his social media account.
But I'm allowed to ask what message the action sends to me.
Because I'm not some anonymous account that appeared yesterday screaming at the CEO.
I'm a shareholder.
I've spent months publicly documenting questions about Nextdoor.
I've repeatedly offered to have an actual conversation.
I've said I'd rather talk than type.
And for more than 100 days I've been pursuing detailed research that Nextdoor itself told readers was available by contacting its Insights representative.
Now I'm reading a Nextdoor report telling me:
Trust depends on communication.
You can't make this stuff up.
Trust Has to Work in Both Directions
Another line in the report fascinates me.
Nextdoor writes that trust is built through repeated interactions, communication, and confidence that others will respond when it matters. Nextdoor Blog
Exactly.
That shouldn't only apply neighbor to neighbor.
I think it's a valuable principle for company-to-customer, leadership-to-shareholder, platform-to-user, and executive-to-stakeholder relationships too.
Trust isn't created by saying the word trust repeatedly.
It isn't created by putting trust in the title of a 24-page PDF.
And it isn't automatically created because a company commissions a reputable polling organization.
Trust grows when words and experiences begin matching.
That's what makes this new report simultaneously encouraging and fascinating to me.
The Research Is Actually Helping Build Trust
Here's where I give Nextdoor genuine credit.
This report increases my confidence in these findings because Nextdoor told me how the research was conducted.
That's exactly how transparency builds trust.
Compare:
“67% of Americans say, X.”
Okay. Where did that number come from?
Versus:
Here's who conducted the survey. Here's when it was conducted. Here's the population. Here's the sample. Here's how respondents were recruited. Here's how weighting worked. Here's the statistical approach. Here are limitations. Here are outside sources. Here's a research contact.
Now we're talking.
Interestingly, the PDF once again lists Jacob Chavis, Senior Manager, Customer Insights, along with his Nextdoor email address as the research contact. Nextdoor Blog
Jacob and I already have some history.
😂
Maybe This Is Progress
I've said throughout this case study that if Nextdoor does something I think is good, I'll say it's good.
This report is progress.
I don't know whether my months of posts had anything whatsoever to do with the format. I have no evidence that they did, so I'm not taking credit.
Maybe Nextdoor was already moving toward more comprehensive research reports.
Maybe working with The Harris Poll resulted in a more rigorous presentation.
Maybe somebody inside Nextdoor independently said, We should probably show people how we got these numbers.
Whatever the reason:
Keep doing this.
And take it one step further.
Provide a Harris Poll link or research contact.
Make additional demographic tables available.
Publish questionnaires where appropriate.
Provide downloadable crosstabs.
Let researchers, journalists, advertisers, shareholders, and curious bald bloggers dig deeper.
That's how confidence in research grows.
Now Apply the Research to Leadership
That's my bigger challenge to Nextdoor.
The report says communication matters.
It says repeated interaction matters.
It says accessibility matters.
It says trust helps communities function.
And its CEO says the difference between a neighborhood and a community is trust. Nextdoor Blog
Great.
Apply those principles internally and externally.
When somebody asks a difficult question, communicate.
When somebody provides feedback, listen.
When somebody requests information that you've advertised as available, answer.
When a shareholder repeatedly offers to have a conversation, perhaps conversation is more consistent with the company's message than another block button.
Nirav doesn't have to agree with me.
Nextdoor doesn't have to agree with me.
Jacob doesn't have to agree with me.
Nobody has to like my posts.
But if we're going to talk about rebuilding trust through communication and interaction, then I think it's fair to ask Nextdoor's leadership to demonstrate the same behavior it celebrates in its research.
Trust is a great research topic.
It's an even better leadership practice.
And this time, Nextdoor, on the research itself:
Bravo. Keep going.
👉 Read my continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog
Day 73: Who Exactly Is Judging Nextdoor’s “Good Neighbors”?
It's Day 73 of waiting for the detailed Nextdoor Insights reports I've requested.
Yesterday, Nextdoor published something that initially made me smile:
“It’s Time to Say Thank You: Nominate a Good Neighbor.”
Full article:
https://blog.nextdoor.com/its-time-to-say-thank-you-nominate-a-good-neighbor
I like the concept.
Nextdoor is asking people to nominate neighbors who consistently show up for others—the person who brings in the trash cans, checks on someone after a storm, waters the plants, or does the little things that make a neighborhood better.
Five neighbors, one from each region, will be publicly recognized on National Good Neighbor Day, September 28.
Great.
Although I hope the winners receive more than a digital pat on the back.
A medal? Plaque? Certificate?
Even better: How about a Nextdoor-funded donation to each winner's favorite local charity?
The blog itself doesn't mention a monetary prize or charitable donation. It says the five winners will be publicly recognized.
Then I reached “What happens next.”
And my communications-study brain switched back on.
Wait...Who's on the Panel?
Nextdoor says that after nominations close on September 14:
“a panel reviews the strongest nominations in each region”
They're scored based on how specific, sustained, and impactful the story is. The rules further say winners are selected by a committee of Nextdoor employees, one for each of five regions.
Okay.
Who?
Who selects the “strongest” nominations before they're scored?
Who sits on the panel?
What makes those people qualified to determine impact?
How is each criterion weighted?
Is there a scoring rubric?
Will those scores be published?
Are panelists required to disclose relationships with nominees?
These aren't accusations.
They're basic transparency questions.
And perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to the word panel after everything I've documented about Nextdoor.
I've questioned its moderation structure.
I've questioned its communications strategy.
And now we're introducing another group of unnamed decision-makers making subjective judgments.
Nextdoor, Show Us Your Simon Cowell
Look at American Idol, America's Got Talent, or Dancing with the Stars.
You know who's judging.
You know their backgrounds.
You can agree or disagree with Simon Cowell, Sofia Vergara, Mel B, Howie Mandel, or whoever happens to be sitting behind the desk—but at least you know who is making the judgment.
So Nextdoor, who's behind your desk?
If you're going to celebrate the best examples of neighborliness across the country, why not make the selection process part of the celebration?
Introduce the panel.
Tell us who they are.
Explain the scoring.
Show us what qualifies someone to evaluate a “specific, sustained, and impactful” contribution.
That's not bureaucracy.
That's transparency.
And after 73 days of my ongoing Nextdoor communication experiment, transparency remains a recurring theme.
I genuinely like the idea behind #GoodNeighborDay.
But if Nextdoor wants neighbors to trust the outcome, don't just tell us that a panel made the decision.
Show us the people behind the decision.
Otherwise, we're back to another familiar Nextdoor question:
Who's making the call—and why should neighbors trust the process?
Meanwhile...
Day 73. Still waiting for those detailed reports.
Follow my continuing Nextdoor study at NielFlamm.com/blog.