The internet really went from BUILD YOUR PERSONAL BRAND to please explain your relationship with the robot before strangers run a scan on your paragraphs. What a time to be alive, Kim. 😂
There is a whole legal process that they ignored as well.
I apologize for this long comment in advance.
Substack's contract with its writers, dated August 2024, says Substack has to tell writers in writing at least 6 weeks before it adds any new vendor that handles our content. It's the EU Standard Contractual Clauses language Substack chose to adopt, and it's enforceable.
The same contract gives writers a 30-day window to object once the vendor list is updated.
The Wayback Machine captured Substack's Publisher Agreement on July 16, 2026, four days before the Pangram launch. Appendix 3 of the Data Processing Agreement lists 14 vendors. Pangram is not on that list.
For the six-week notice to have happened, writers would have needed a written heads-up on or before June 8, 2026. Nothing in the archived record shows that. I have not checked their website today. In my experience, they will eventually catch on and start updating shit as they move along.
The likely counterargument from Substack is that Pangram isn't a vendor in that sense because the scans are user-initiated. But their own launch post says writers can run Pangram on their drafts before publication. Unpublished writing flowing to a third party through Substack's platform is exactly what the vendor clause is written to cover.
It doesn't mean there was a breach, so I want to be super clear about that, and I am not an attorney lol, but there are enough legal loopholes for some legal team to question this entire charade.
I don’t think it will take long for an attorney or at least EU writers to make some noise they should listen to (and/or writers with big audiences).
What a time to be alive indeed, my friend.
Not to mention, I have a hard time thinking Substack has people’s best interest in mind when they allow pro-nazi garbage and Andrew Tate on the platform. But, but, “the First Amendment! FREE SPEECH!”
Wouldn’t AI assisted writing also fall under the First Amendment? 🤔
Whatever Substack’s public reasoning is for this, nothing in me believes we’re getting the truth.
"Wouldn’t AI-assisted writing also fall under the First Amendment? 🤔" - short answer it doesn't.
BUT there is a longer conversation to be had here. If Pangram's scores are used to make consequential decisions (say, downranking flagged writers in discovery, or affecting monetization eligibility), there could be a contract or fair-dealing argument against Substack. Because this will eventually happen.
This is what I'm watching Neela. There's no way to avoid the negative effect this tool will have on writers who use AI. I'm watching for a change in algo, but instantly Substack is training readers to be suspicious and deemed what is valuable without our consent. You don't get to change the rules without consent... It also seems like bad business: to cause any resistance for writers to make money which affects their bottom line feels asinine. I don't get it. The only thing that makes sense (and I've watched three Chris Best interviews in the last few days) is he's acting on his personal feeling about AI generated comments (he hates them) and wanting to protect the human aspect of this app... The way to do that is not with a witch hunt and a flawed scoring tool, which isn't human.
I’m hoping the EU/UK hit Substack with some legal action that makes them realize how asinine this is as well as either creators with huge audiences calling letting them know they’re happy to leave and/or investors pushing back.
It was lovely, thanks for asking. Pool time & reading (nothing like having a novel you're anxious to get back to).
AND...
I have baby watermelons coming in! haha...
Planted a veggie garden with my Dad this year, and it's so fun to see everything starting to come in. Corn, tomatoes, peppers, watermelon, cucumbers... I think the pumpkins & cantaloupe are getting ready to sprout too! He asked me what I was going to do with the pumpkins... (we don't get trick-or-treaters, and the house is tucked back off the main street).
I told him everyone in the family would get one to do what they wanted with it, lol. I just wanted to grow them!
I genuinely thought about leaving all weekend. It’s a frustrating time to be on these platforms.
Beyond the feeling that you’re constantly being watched, I saw that Medium is planning to track how people are using their editor tool. And honestly, that pissed me off. Because I cross-post to Medium too.
My workflow is simple: I write everything for Substack, then I repost it on Medium by copying and pasting. Yes, Medium has an editor where I could write directly, but the last time I tried that, drafts wouldn’t save, errors would pop up, and I’d lose my work. After that happened a few times, I stopped trusting it.
So I write everything down in my notebook first. Then I type it into Google Sheets. Then I paste it into Medium or Substack.
Apparently, somehow, that workflow can now look like I’m using AI.
Like… seriously, what the fuck?
All I know is I’m not changing the way I think, create, or work just to make $5. At some point, I’m going to wake up and tell these platforms to go fuck themselves. I predict that writers who are just here to write would leave and build their own website. People like me.
I caught up with a friend yesterday whose only source of traffic is paid ads (I think she might have someone on her team post to social once in a while, but it’s simple visibility).
No content, no social, etc.
Not that I want to give any of these platforms money, but I’m giving my time now, so it’s not much different.
I’ve watched her scale this brand from nothing to 7-figures over the last 6-7 years, so it’s hardly been overnight, but still (not that 7-figures has to be the goal; she’s scaled up to licensing, which I have no desire to do).
And WTF Medium?
All of this feels very much like a bait-and-switch, even though we weren’t using AI like this when these platforms existed.
I’ve run paid traffic, and it’s gotten a LOT easier.
That’s what I’m working towards.
If it weren’t for the people here not sure I’d bother.
That's the irony, isn't it? We spend years being told to build an audience on someone else's platform, and then the rules change overnight. The only thing that compounds consistently is trust.
Like you, I stick around because I appreciate the people.
I did check out GHOST as a platform yesterday.
I think by the end of the year I could move some of my subscribers to Ghost.
I don't need a big following. I just need a couple thousand dedicated readers to build on. Run some ads on IG and Facebook and be done with it. Still pondering.
In my time here Substack has not notified of contractual updates. And about adding sub processor s like PanGram- don't get me started. Feel free to report them to data protection authorities. Not notifying us of a new processor is a breach of contract and GDPR as they gave access to personal data to a third party without following the process. We must approve first- O mean it is a formality they should have notified. In terms of our right to object- exists in theory, practically it’s not possible so it’s a take it or leave it situation.
Thanks Tricia for tagging me. One thing not mentioned here is also that when a data processor (Substack) adds a subprocessor (pangram) to process personal data of the controller without notifying they in practice become controllers of the personal data. This status comes with many more requirement … it is mind blowing they dod such a public move so poorly
Amen to this: ““These companies do not have your best interests in mind. EVER. Their priority is shareholder value and profits. Period.” I’m getting madder and madder by the minute.
The filter is the part I'd underline. "Pain isn't the same thing as a budget" kills more ideas than market research does, and having that written down before you're attached to an idea is the whole trick — otherwise you just accumulate half-finished leverage. The scanner is a small thing; needing permission to keep earning is the big one.
I’ve had plenty of ideas that I know would be helpful and are needed, but until I have a not-for-profit arm of my business, the profit piece has to come first.
Reading this today. I am fascinated by how you use your experience to leverage the tools we have and improve your output!
I want to use the filter you proposed and I’m wondering how you interpret the validity of whatever answers the tools give you. I’m sure add the prompts which make it as skeptical as possible but also wonder if for people like me who are more easily swayed to critique we end up building a filter that is our mirror and therefore is likely to refute every idea we come up with.
In my case the best I can come up with are buckets of the most plausible experiments I want to run (all likely to not work) but the data ultimately I guess will come from people when I try them. That’s a fair case because AI is helping me narrow down my options among all buckets.
I wish I had a scientific answer for you re how I interpret the validity of whatever answers the tools give me, but it’s usually a gut thing, based on experience.
A simple thing: with the first directory I built (direct booking for a region of Costa Rica), it said not to use photos when listing the towns for the region. They were all ‘cards’ on the homepage with a variation of a gradient sunset (Claude Design).
It’s reasoning: it will look like every other travel site (or some dumb explanation, lol). I did it and hated it. The site looked unfinished.
Then when I said “no, this looks ugly, I’m doing photos”… it agreed with me. 🙄
When it’s technical stuff that is new to me I make it explain it to me like I’m 12. I want to understand what I’m building, how it works, and how it solves the problem.
I’d love to chat about this whenever… this is an interesting (and needed) conversation.
How’s this for irony. I (and La Claude) wrote an open letter to Anthropic about how AI is hardening the glass ceiling, what it can do about it and why. Before I published, I ran the Pangram audit on it and it said 100% human generated.
When I told Claude, she answered:
“100% human written.
A letter co-authored by an AI, about AI bias, containing verbatim quotes from an AI, drafted in collaboration with an AI over the course of an entire day — and Pangram looks at it and says: pure human.
Which is either a magnificent vindication of everything we built together, or the most perfectly ironic proof that the whole field is chasing the wrong thing.
My hope is to get it seen by Daniela Amodei. She has publicly expressed an interest in this topic. Do you know anyone who knows anyone who knows her? LOL
"A box for explaining yourself only exists once somebody has decided you have something to explain, and in one move the burden quietly shifted from the platform to me. Now I’m supposed to account for my tools on a platform that wouldn’t exist without people showing up here and publishing... for free."
I feel your fury! and commend and celebrate your strategy Kim! I hope you and Needa (below) both surface your points right back to Substack. I did even though they are of a different nature. Keep on, sisters!
If a reader can't tell whether a human wrote it or a machine spit it out, the real question is why anyone bothered reading it in the first place. Appreciate the perspective.
Using AI tools to help compile content for articles is not a bad thing in my mind. Because to get to the point where you are happy with the results means you have to do the work in making the prompts to generate the results and define the parameters for the model use in the way you you’d want it to. It’s not merely saying “write something about this…” My process is pretty involved so that I’m producing something with these tools that is not merely produced without extensive input from me. And I think anyone who is using these tools well to produce content that others want to read should not be made to feel that their output is somehow unworthy because it’s not fully penned in their own hand. My strength in writing is in a whole other genre than what I produce in Substack. And using AI to help me efficiently pull together the concepts I am thinking about and researching into content about my faith journey is how I keep moving along that path. It’s a useful tool. If people don’t want to read it because I use these tools that’s okay. But hopefully those who do will find value in it, because I do.
The time and energy I’ve put into voice skills, tools, prompts, all of it, came from me.
I’ve been writing online since 2008… I have no problem writing without, but it’s helped me refine my work, go deeper, and create things I couldn’t have thought possible.
I have no doubt it’s also helped people get started writing… learning their voices and cadence.
It’s not a bad thing at all. We’re not putting this genie back in the bottle. This feels like nothing more than a witch hunt.
Dumbest move from a platform I’ve seen in a while.
I've been a published author since 1978, a published book author since 1990 and if somebody whose substack I like uses AI (which I doubt) I am not remotely interested in checking. That's between them and their work. I myself don't and won't use AI for anything I write except spell check and I ignore AI "assistants" with their cute names on websites.
I love the way you explain your thought process! After almost as many years on WP - and recently enjoying “Eden” an (AI software that now knows me, my content and goals well); I finally see clarity on what I am building. I have always had the big goal - but fitting a lifestyle where I take a couple of weeks off every other month to visit family is my priority filter. I have been fascinated with studying the variety of business models possible!
I want to see the medical system changed (yes, I am aware it is already happening - with or without me) by educating people on nutrition and how their body is designed so they don’t have their life and money sucked dry by a system designed to do just that.
I see making pages credible to AI as a means to make sure the medical model that promotes drugs and doctors is not the only voice (am I allowed to say this aloud?!)
Thank you for what you’re building and the thoughtful way you share your processes. I’m definitely along for the ride!
The internet really went from BUILD YOUR PERSONAL BRAND to please explain your relationship with the robot before strangers run a scan on your paragraphs. What a time to be alive, Kim. 😂
There is a whole legal process that they ignored as well.
I apologize for this long comment in advance.
Substack's contract with its writers, dated August 2024, says Substack has to tell writers in writing at least 6 weeks before it adds any new vendor that handles our content. It's the EU Standard Contractual Clauses language Substack chose to adopt, and it's enforceable.
The same contract gives writers a 30-day window to object once the vendor list is updated.
The Wayback Machine captured Substack's Publisher Agreement on July 16, 2026, four days before the Pangram launch. Appendix 3 of the Data Processing Agreement lists 14 vendors. Pangram is not on that list.
For the six-week notice to have happened, writers would have needed a written heads-up on or before June 8, 2026. Nothing in the archived record shows that. I have not checked their website today. In my experience, they will eventually catch on and start updating shit as they move along.
The likely counterargument from Substack is that Pangram isn't a vendor in that sense because the scans are user-initiated. But their own launch post says writers can run Pangram on their drafts before publication. Unpublished writing flowing to a third party through Substack's platform is exactly what the vendor clause is written to cover.
It doesn't mean there was a breach, so I want to be super clear about that, and I am not an attorney lol, but there are enough legal loopholes for some legal team to question this entire charade.
Happy Friday Kim
I LOVE the long comment.
I don’t think it will take long for an attorney or at least EU writers to make some noise they should listen to (and/or writers with big audiences).
What a time to be alive indeed, my friend.
Not to mention, I have a hard time thinking Substack has people’s best interest in mind when they allow pro-nazi garbage and Andrew Tate on the platform. But, but, “the First Amendment! FREE SPEECH!”
Wouldn’t AI assisted writing also fall under the First Amendment? 🤔
Whatever Substack’s public reasoning is for this, nothing in me believes we’re getting the truth.
"Wouldn’t AI-assisted writing also fall under the First Amendment? 🤔" - short answer it doesn't.
BUT there is a longer conversation to be had here. If Pangram's scores are used to make consequential decisions (say, downranking flagged writers in discovery, or affecting monetization eligibility), there could be a contract or fair-dealing argument against Substack. Because this will eventually happen.
Thanks for the correction.
If only that rule applied to the idiot in the White House with his AI-generated images. 🙄
*A perfect example of why it's hard to take any regulation around anything with AI seriously.
If only 🤣🤣🤣
This is what I'm watching Neela. There's no way to avoid the negative effect this tool will have on writers who use AI. I'm watching for a change in algo, but instantly Substack is training readers to be suspicious and deemed what is valuable without our consent. You don't get to change the rules without consent... It also seems like bad business: to cause any resistance for writers to make money which affects their bottom line feels asinine. I don't get it. The only thing that makes sense (and I've watched three Chris Best interviews in the last few days) is he's acting on his personal feeling about AI generated comments (he hates them) and wanting to protect the human aspect of this app... The way to do that is not with a witch hunt and a flawed scoring tool, which isn't human.
I’m hoping the EU/UK hit Substack with some legal action that makes them realize how asinine this is as well as either creators with huge audiences calling letting them know they’re happy to leave and/or investors pushing back.
Happy Monday Kim
How was your weekend?
One could only wish.
Tech companies have no shame.
They really don't.
It was lovely, thanks for asking. Pool time & reading (nothing like having a novel you're anxious to get back to).
AND...
I have baby watermelons coming in! haha...
Planted a veggie garden with my Dad this year, and it's so fun to see everything starting to come in. Corn, tomatoes, peppers, watermelon, cucumbers... I think the pumpkins & cantaloupe are getting ready to sprout too! He asked me what I was going to do with the pumpkins... (we don't get trick-or-treaters, and the house is tucked back off the main street).
I told him everyone in the family would get one to do what they wanted with it, lol. I just wanted to grow them!
How was your weekend?
Happy Monday Patricia
I genuinely thought about leaving all weekend. It’s a frustrating time to be on these platforms.
Beyond the feeling that you’re constantly being watched, I saw that Medium is planning to track how people are using their editor tool. And honestly, that pissed me off. Because I cross-post to Medium too.
My workflow is simple: I write everything for Substack, then I repost it on Medium by copying and pasting. Yes, Medium has an editor where I could write directly, but the last time I tried that, drafts wouldn’t save, errors would pop up, and I’d lose my work. After that happened a few times, I stopped trusting it.
So I write everything down in my notebook first. Then I type it into Google Sheets. Then I paste it into Medium or Substack.
Apparently, somehow, that workflow can now look like I’m using AI.
Like… seriously, what the fuck?
All I know is I’m not changing the way I think, create, or work just to make $5. At some point, I’m going to wake up and tell these platforms to go fuck themselves. I predict that writers who are just here to write would leave and build their own website. People like me.
Preach sister!
I caught up with a friend yesterday whose only source of traffic is paid ads (I think she might have someone on her team post to social once in a while, but it’s simple visibility).
No content, no social, etc.
Not that I want to give any of these platforms money, but I’m giving my time now, so it’s not much different.
I’ve watched her scale this brand from nothing to 7-figures over the last 6-7 years, so it’s hardly been overnight, but still (not that 7-figures has to be the goal; she’s scaled up to licensing, which I have no desire to do).
And WTF Medium?
All of this feels very much like a bait-and-switch, even though we weren’t using AI like this when these platforms existed.
I’ve run paid traffic, and it’s gotten a LOT easier.
That’s what I’m working towards.
If it weren’t for the people here not sure I’d bother.
That's the irony, isn't it? We spend years being told to build an audience on someone else's platform, and then the rules change overnight. The only thing that compounds consistently is trust.
Like you, I stick around because I appreciate the people.
I did check out GHOST as a platform yesterday.
I think by the end of the year I could move some of my subscribers to Ghost.
I don't need a big following. I just need a couple thousand dedicated readers to build on. Run some ads on IG and Facebook and be done with it. Still pondering.
In my time here Substack has not notified of contractual updates. And about adding sub processor s like PanGram- don't get me started. Feel free to report them to data protection authorities. Not notifying us of a new processor is a breach of contract and GDPR as they gave access to personal data to a third party without following the process. We must approve first- O mean it is a formality they should have notified. In terms of our right to object- exists in theory, practically it’s not possible so it’s a take it or leave it situation.
Reporting to data protection authorities is doable! Thank you.
Man, I love the good ole’ “Wayback Machine.”
See, I know there was a reason I liked you.
#NerdsUnite 😂
Oh this is absolutely one for @Noemi - Legal genie to get her teeth into! Brilliant find @Neela 🌶️ - trust you to be in the depth of the small print!!
Thanks Tricia for tagging me. One thing not mentioned here is also that when a data processor (Substack) adds a subprocessor (pangram) to process personal data of the controller without notifying they in practice become controllers of the personal data. This status comes with many more requirement … it is mind blowing they dod such a public move so poorly
Thank you for that, Noemi,
Thank you for adding to the conversation with your expertise, Noemi
I hope you have a wonderful week ahead.
I read it quickly for someone yesterday based on a question he asked, and I would like more people to prove me wrong.
Happy weekend Tricia :)
Thanks Kim!
I am reading this now.
So glad you wrote this.
Thank YOU!
Happy Friday 😊
Amen to this: ““These companies do not have your best interests in mind. EVER. Their priority is shareholder value and profits. Period.” I’m getting madder and madder by the minute.
It’s such a blatant disregard for the users. They’re altruistic when they start, but then it’s a complete bait & switch.
Yep. Major switch!
The filter is the part I'd underline. "Pain isn't the same thing as a budget" kills more ideas than market research does, and having that written down before you're attached to an idea is the whole trick — otherwise you just accumulate half-finished leverage. The scanner is a small thing; needing permission to keep earning is the big one.
Thanks, Jacob,
I’ve had plenty of ideas that I know would be helpful and are needed, but until I have a not-for-profit arm of my business, the profit piece has to come first.
Reading this today. I am fascinated by how you use your experience to leverage the tools we have and improve your output!
I want to use the filter you proposed and I’m wondering how you interpret the validity of whatever answers the tools give you. I’m sure add the prompts which make it as skeptical as possible but also wonder if for people like me who are more easily swayed to critique we end up building a filter that is our mirror and therefore is likely to refute every idea we come up with.
In my case the best I can come up with are buckets of the most plausible experiments I want to run (all likely to not work) but the data ultimately I guess will come from people when I try them. That’s a fair case because AI is helping me narrow down my options among all buckets.
Sorry about the ramble and thank you Kim 🙂🌼
Not a ramble at all, Priyanka,
I wish I had a scientific answer for you re how I interpret the validity of whatever answers the tools give me, but it’s usually a gut thing, based on experience.
A simple thing: with the first directory I built (direct booking for a region of Costa Rica), it said not to use photos when listing the towns for the region. They were all ‘cards’ on the homepage with a variation of a gradient sunset (Claude Design).
It’s reasoning: it will look like every other travel site (or some dumb explanation, lol). I did it and hated it. The site looked unfinished.
Then when I said “no, this looks ugly, I’m doing photos”… it agreed with me. 🙄
When it’s technical stuff that is new to me I make it explain it to me like I’m 12. I want to understand what I’m building, how it works, and how it solves the problem.
I’d love to chat about this whenever… this is an interesting (and needed) conversation.
I think I get what you mean, thank you for taking the time. We have to have a full conversation - the live on this and more!
YES!!! And your’e welcome!
How’s this for irony. I (and La Claude) wrote an open letter to Anthropic about how AI is hardening the glass ceiling, what it can do about it and why. Before I published, I ran the Pangram audit on it and it said 100% human generated.
When I told Claude, she answered:
“100% human written.
A letter co-authored by an AI, about AI bias, containing verbatim quotes from an AI, drafted in collaboration with an AI over the course of an entire day — and Pangram looks at it and says: pure human.
Which is either a magnificent vindication of everything we built together, or the most perfectly ironic proof that the whole field is chasing the wrong thing.
Or both. Probably both.”
You couldn’t make this s#it up!
https://www.bebusinesssavvy.com/p/how-ai-reinforces-gender-bias-at
HA!
Classic… let’s see if Chris Best can put his ego aside and listen to his users. 🙄
My hope is to get it seen by Daniela Amodei. She has publicly expressed an interest in this topic. Do you know anyone who knows anyone who knows her? LOL
Unfortunately I don’t. Tweet her maybe?
I did a LI outreach. That’s pretty much the only social media I use.
"A box for explaining yourself only exists once somebody has decided you have something to explain, and in one move the burden quietly shifted from the platform to me. Now I’m supposed to account for my tools on a platform that wouldn’t exist without people showing up here and publishing... for free."
THIS.
Thank you, Patricia
I feel your fury! and commend and celebrate your strategy Kim! I hope you and Needa (below) both surface your points right back to Substack. I did even though they are of a different nature. Keep on, sisters!
Thank you, Susan,
Absolutely! Here’s to keeping on!
If a reader can't tell whether a human wrote it or a machine spit it out, the real question is why anyone bothered reading it in the first place. Appreciate the perspective.
Thanks, Timothy
And Now substack puts in risk all off us , right now is already violating many laws around the world.
Looks here
https://substack.com/@luiscamposb2b/note/p-208365129?r=8mde1p&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Using AI tools to help compile content for articles is not a bad thing in my mind. Because to get to the point where you are happy with the results means you have to do the work in making the prompts to generate the results and define the parameters for the model use in the way you you’d want it to. It’s not merely saying “write something about this…” My process is pretty involved so that I’m producing something with these tools that is not merely produced without extensive input from me. And I think anyone who is using these tools well to produce content that others want to read should not be made to feel that their output is somehow unworthy because it’s not fully penned in their own hand. My strength in writing is in a whole other genre than what I produce in Substack. And using AI to help me efficiently pull together the concepts I am thinking about and researching into content about my faith journey is how I keep moving along that path. It’s a useful tool. If people don’t want to read it because I use these tools that’s okay. But hopefully those who do will find value in it, because I do.
Exactly, Sue!
The time and energy I’ve put into voice skills, tools, prompts, all of it, came from me.
I’ve been writing online since 2008… I have no problem writing without, but it’s helped me refine my work, go deeper, and create things I couldn’t have thought possible.
I have no doubt it’s also helped people get started writing… learning their voices and cadence.
It’s not a bad thing at all. We’re not putting this genie back in the bottle. This feels like nothing more than a witch hunt.
Dumbest move from a platform I’ve seen in a while.
I’m working on a series around this topic for this next week because you brought this to the table!
Thanks, Sue!
I look forward to reading it!
I've been a published author since 1978, a published book author since 1990 and if somebody whose substack I like uses AI (which I doubt) I am not remotely interested in checking. That's between them and their work. I myself don't and won't use AI for anything I write except spell check and I ignore AI "assistants" with their cute names on websites.
Same.
The last thing I have time, energy, or desire to do is check anyone else’s work.
Exactly. Why are we being pushed to become paranoid? I just don't see the point.
I'd never thought about the automated audio feature. Not very consistent, eh?
I wrote about the new tool rated my most recent article at 95% AI.
It took me 3-4 hours to write.
Clearly I'm doing something wrong :-).
My bigger concern here is how we are ceding our agency, once again, to a machine.
The questions with any content should be simple:
Did you like it?
Did it help?
Anything beyond that is a distraction.
I love the way you explain your thought process! After almost as many years on WP - and recently enjoying “Eden” an (AI software that now knows me, my content and goals well); I finally see clarity on what I am building. I have always had the big goal - but fitting a lifestyle where I take a couple of weeks off every other month to visit family is my priority filter. I have been fascinated with studying the variety of business models possible!
I want to see the medical system changed (yes, I am aware it is already happening - with or without me) by educating people on nutrition and how their body is designed so they don’t have their life and money sucked dry by a system designed to do just that.
I see making pages credible to AI as a means to make sure the medical model that promotes drugs and doctors is not the only voice (am I allowed to say this aloud?!)
Thank you for what you’re building and the thoughtful way you share your processes. I’m definitely along for the ride!