Why I believe algorithm manipulation is being employed against my newsletter and why dramatic metric “trend-changes” anger (and frighten) me.

3 areas that make my newsletter different are my persistent and largely unique focus on Early Spread, the Embalmers’ Clots and ‘curious changes on Substack.’

Many readers might think my views on “curious Substack metrics” are imagined and I should quit whining about this. However, many readers applaud my stories on early spread and the embalmers’ clots, which might explain why my metrics have reversed.

Two examples of recent reader comments germane to today’s dispatch:

Mary: I did not see a comment from you on the post by Christine. I tried twice to reply to that post but it did not register.

csofand: Me either Mary.

***

For all the articles I’ve posted about “curious trends on Substack,” I’ve yet to identify the main reasons this (possible) nefarious activity disturbs and angers me … tremendously. Today, I provide several of these reasons, which might make a few of my remaining readers better understand my keen interest in this subject and this “trend change.”

For purposes of this article, I assume the “trend reversals” I’ve observed on my Substack newsletter are not universal nor “organic” changes which have affected all Sustack content creators roughly the same. Instead, I assume these changes must have been intentional, have been orchestrated for a reason(s) and my newsletter has likely been identified as a “threat” and thus has been specifically targeted.

IMO, these reasons are designed to thwart the reach and influence of my articles and Notes. I will start with this point …

… These changes have caused significant financial harm to myself and my family.

For four years, producing this Substack newsletter has been my full-time job and the only source of revenue I derive for our family. (The vast majority of family income comes from my wife’s teacher’s salary).

As only I (and Substack/Stripe) would know, my monthly revenue stream has plummeted (from about $1,200 net income/month to now about $250/month).

Unknown is how much my Substack income might have been by now - or in the future - if my newsletter (IMO) had not been “targeted” for reach and revenue-suppression operations … or if such striking metric changes had not occurred.

To be clear, I can’t definitively “prove” my subscription (and Ko-fi “gratuity”) income is being adversely affected.

However, if this is happening, such a “conspiracy,” IMO, would qualify as an unfair trade practice and must violate myriad criminal statutes as well as constitute grounds for a legitimate civil lawsuit, qualifying me (and probably many other potential plaintiffs for compensatory and punitive damages).

(Share Request: To my fellow content providers, please share with others you think might be interested in this subject.)

With this piece, I don’t want to bore readers with specific examples of my own changing metrics. However, for quick illustration purposes, I simply note that for the first 13 months of my Substack newsletter, I was averaging adding 16.5 new paid subscribers every month.

In the past 12 months, I have averaged losing 3.2 new paid subscribers per month, with this key metric declining from 271 to 232 - a loss of 39 net paid subscribers or a decrease of 14.4 percent. (My peak paid subscription number was 310 on September 7, 2024 - 22 months ago.)

According to Substack’s “Gross Annualized Revenue” metric, in the past 12 months my annual revenue has declined by “only” 13.1 percent. However, per my cash-flow accounting, the income deposited into my bank account in recent months has decreased by approximately 76 percent (from $1,200 to $250).

Significantly, the pace of lost subscribers (paid and free) is accelerating as I lost five paid subscribers in the past 30 days

For the first 12 months of this newsletter, I previously added, on average, 378 total subscribers every month. In recent months, I’ve been losing approximately three to five total subscribers every day.

As I’ve noted in previous “curious metrics” articles, the vast majority of my new articles now produce produce zero subscribers when, for the first two years of my newsletter, my articles produced, on average, at least 14 new subscribers every time I hit “send.”

As this 6-month graph illustrates, the trend lines are all heading south.

I know this might come across as whining …

Some readers have politely informed me that readers don’t care about “metrics” stories, which I acknowledge might come across as whining. While some readers hold this opinion, this POV wasn’t always the case as the story that produced my record number of new paid subscribers (41) was my first big story on “curious trends on Substack.” So … go figure.

(For purposes of providing a basis of comparison between “then and now,” readers might click on this link and note that this particular story - published 28 months ago - produced 1,158 “likes,” and 657 Reader Comments in addition to netting me, over the ensuing 10 days, 41 new paid subscribers and 251 free subscribers.)

My working hypothesis is that “someone” has applied various unknown algorithms that have dramatically changed my key Substack metrics of paid-subscribers-generated, total subscribers, Page Views and number of “likes” and Reader Comments.

Also, as mentioned, it’s impossible to know how many total and paid subscribers I might have today (and in the future) if these changes had not occurred. My working theory is that my key Substack metrics would have continued to grow - and, with it, my income.

Per my estimate or belief, in the last two years stark changes in my Substack metrics have probably cost me, in the aggregate, tens of thousands of dollars, and perhaps a figure that would approach $100,000 by next fall (when, at one time, I was pacing to have 1,000 paid subscribers).

A better way to frame sentiments that might be labeled as “sour grapes” or “whining” might be to ask readers: “Would you be agitated if you thought someone had effectively “stolen,” say, $35,000 from you?

My level of frustration or sense that illegal or fraudulent mechanisms are being used to harm certain authors might not exist if the same metric trends were common across all Substack authors.

However, as I have documented ad nauseam, it is clear that more liberal authors - those more likely to defend the authorized narratives - are not experiencing the same dramatic trend reversals. Indeed, large numbers of Substack authors are experiencing the same impressive growth rates I once experienced, but even more so.

Based on analyzing my own metrics and the published numbers of other Substack authors, I have also reached the firm conclusion that any censorship or reach-suppression efforts seem to be different for different authors.

Why is always the best question …

If my reach-suppression hypothesis is accurate (or, at least for some authors, is occurring), the next obvious question would be why is this occurring.

To myself, the most likely reason would be that certain entities and powerful organizations are determined to suppress the reach of certain authors, especially those who focus on potentially “thermo-nuclear” or taboo topics that might threaten the Powers that Be or the “authorized” narrative(s).

IMO, this conclusion jibes with common sense and, as we move forward in our New Abnormal times, suggests that narrative-control operations will no doubt remain significant and will likely even intensify.

I’ve also concluded that those engaged in different varieties and levels of censorship would not have to focus on every potential influencer, but would instead likely focus their efforts on those they believe have the greatest potential to expose their past nefarious deeds and thwart their future projects.

If this theory is true, and I have been placed high on any “threat” list, my newsletter might receive more extreme counter-measures to ensure my theories and articles don’t reach a wider audience.

(The evidence that numerous government entities, NGOs, fact-checking organizations and corporate “news” organizations have conspired to do just this in the past is undeniable.)

Et tu, Substack?

One potentially-explosive allegation - or possibility - I keep raising is that such reach-suppression operations are now, very possibly, being employed on Substack.

If proven (which I doubt it ever will be), this change would be particularly disconcerting to champions of authentic free speech as, for years, Substack was clearly viewed, correctly, as a beacon of free speech and the place citizen journalists - by default - flocked to to avoid censorship.

IMO, efforts to suppress the reach of authors like myself - and amplify the reach of people who rarely agree with people like myself - have become far more sophisticated, ingenious/devious and almost impossible to “prove.”

If someone was somehow able to “prove” that the reach of their Substack newsletter has been suppressed, an obvious conclusion would be that such tools were not being employed to thwart or harm just one “contrarian” author.

If more people realized how many people had been surreptitiously targeted and negatively affected, the public might better realize the scope and scale of these Orwellian activities and know for a fact such operations had not been abandoned and, indeed, seem to have expanded to include new threats … of which Substack might be considered the most conspicuous potential threat.

***

As always, censorship programs have two goals: To prevent the exposure of past crimes and to make it easier to implement future “reforms” which will increase the control of the State or their oligarch/Deep State partners.

Such disclosures would suggest that the Powers that Be are more determined than ever to implement even more draconian and liberty-stealing initiatives in the future.

That is, greater awareness of possible “shadow censorship” projects on Substack should not be viewed as an insignificant development. This, IMO, would, qualify as an extremely ominous development.

Three areas of focus that might make my newsletter stand out and thus be viewed as a ‘threat’

One question I’ve asked myself is what might make my Substack different than other Substacks, even those of my fellow “Covid Contrarians.”

I’ve already outlined one of these areas - my focus on possible “funny business” on Substack itself. While other authors have expressed similar concerns, few Substack colleagues have devoted as many column inches to analyzing or exploring this possibility as I have.

The subject that probably first put me on the Substack map was my focus on “early spread,” which I continue to believe could be a thermo-nuclear revelation … if this hypothesis was ever definitively “confirmed” and then fully understood by large swaths of the public.

On a planet with approximately 8 billon inhabitants, I am confident no other writer has written more about this topic than I have (thus, I am “different” than almost all of my colleagues … at least as it involves my persistent efforts to highlighting these two “taboo” issues.)

Even today, the significance of early spread is difficult for most citizens to grasp or appreciate. However, if people realized that tens of millions of global citizens had already been infected by a novel coronavirus by the late fall of 2019 - with no increase in all-cause deaths - the entire narrative on the “deadly” virus would be completely different.

People might realize that everything they were told about this pandemic - and then the shots they were told they had to get to save their own life and the lives of millions of others - was wrong or a lie and that key officials must have known this all along.

(As a citizen journalist, my primary goal is to discredit and debunk bogus experts, who I believe cause far more harm than they prevent. My ultimate and most ambitious goal is to play a small role in creating a massive purge of obtuse or corrupt “leaders,” a result which, IMO, would make possible a much brighter future.)

Embalmers’ clots

I’ve also written probably 25 articles on the embalmers’ clots phenomena and referenced them in probably 500 posts at other sites.

I wouldn’t say I have written more about the embalmers’ clots than any other Substack author, but if Substack consists of 30,000 content creators, I’m probably in the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent who has tried to raise awareness of this potential scandal.

While it’s more challenging to explain the significance of “early spread” to the disinterested layman, my 10-year-old son could instantly comprehend the significance of the embalmers’ clots simply by looking at a few photos of actual “clots.”

As such, this subject continues to be the world’s most likely thermonuclear truth bomb - that is, if it ever detonated, which, apparently, it never will.

Only one reason explains why billions of people are not already outraged by our trusted officials’ refusal to investigate this “public health” nightmare. That reason: Mind-boggling levels of coordinated censorship.

In my opinion, the people and organizations who devise and implement censorship programs have figured out who poses the greatest threat to their continued rule and then have targeted these specific people.

As it turns out, there’s no need to censor, say, Robert Reich or Heather Cox Richardson; in fact, the reach of these influencers is no doubt artificially inflated.

However, even a “small-time” freelance journalist like myself might be identified as a threat to continued control of the world’s “real rulers” - not because of the number of readers I had on a certain date, but because of the number of readers I might reach if my audience continued to grow, something which, of course, did not happen.

In Conclusion …

IMO, the world’s growing number of censorship advocates obviously pay attention to circulation numbers of different authors or pundits. However, of more interest to them might be a project to identify the subjects these authors focus on.

Over the past two days, my subscriber Freedom Fox and I exchanged emails on today’s subject. FWIW, Freedom Fox agrees with my premise/hypothesis and is one of a not insignificant number of readers who has told me he’s detected ways that my newsletter seems to have been targeted for more proactive reach-suppression activities.

Freedom Fox says one goal of shadow-censors is to make sure authors like ourselves are, effectively, “speaking to an empty room.” (Another metaphor would be that all “contrarian” authors have effectively been herded into one insignificant corral.)

In previous dispatches, I’ve pointed out that one of the main goals of my articles is to simply point out significant changes (from past “norms”) that have occurred. Employing the Socratic Method, I then ask myself why these changes must/might have occurred.

One obvious and dramatic change I’ve observed involves the metrics of my own Substack newsletter. IMO, my metrics changed - at least in part - because of the subjects I write about.

As I told Freedom Fox, it also wouldn’t surprise me if psy-op or narrative controllers employ sophisticated assessments to perform psychological profiles on certain writers or pundits who might possess the character and communication skills to more effectively challenge scandalous narratives and, perhaps, galvanize larger numbers of citizens.

“This person is a greater potential threat than other writers,” might be one conclusion such sinister agents reach.

Or, it’s possible I am completely off base and am just another citizen who has been consumed by paranoia and become a believer in non-existent conspiracies.

However, I would like to conclude by stating it’s not paranoia if someone really is out to get you.

***

Note:

In today’s Reader Comments, I will add a flurry of “Bonus Content.” The first comment explains my interest in today’s Comment Section. Readers are invited to opine on whether these comments might qualify as good or interesting added value to them.

Writer gratuities via Ko-Fi.