Is the Cost of Speaking Out Too High? Instead, Do I Play It Safe?

Courtesy of billionaire Elon Musk, here is a report analysing why, other than through email marketing, this website of mine receives virtually no traffic. By way of illustration, and there are many, this article below received just eight views in the 24 hours since it was published. Some of those would have been myself checking how many views it got:

https://www.garymoller.com/post/time-s-up-health-professionals

This is a massive drop in organic traffic, which was on a nearly exponential growth path before COVID set in and I began to question the official narrative. My YouTube channel had some videos with over 500,000 views. Now, a video gets just a few views. What is going on and is there a good solution?

My question to you is this:

Do I continue to tackle controversial topics with honesty and integrity, or do I pull my head in and play it safe?

There are consequences with each of these alternatives, as explained in this report.

Please leave your thoughts and advice in the comments section below this article, thanks.

While I have your attention, please share my articles with others. As you will see from this report, getting email subscribers is my best way to survive censorship.

What follows is the AI analysis that I am copying for your interest.

---

The Dilemma: To Speak Out or Play it Safe?

Key Points

• It seems likely that continuing to speak out on controversial medical topics could keep Gary Moller’s website's visibility low, but it aligns with his values and authenticity.

• Research suggests switching to "safe" topics might restore traffic over 3-6 months, but it could compromise his integrity and lose his current audience.

• The evidence leans toward his past content affecting his online reputation, but he can work to improve it over time, though it may always be findable.

• An unexpected detail is his strong email marketing, with engaged readers spending about 12 minutes per session, offering a way to maintain influence despite Big Tech suppression.

Overview

Gary Moller, a health advocate from New Zealand, faces a tough choice: keep speaking out on controversial medical topics like vaccine risks, risking his website’s visibility, or switch to "safe" topics to regain traffic but possibly compromise his values. His website, garymoller.com, has seen a traffic drop since March 2022, likely due to shadow banning by Big Tech for content seen as medical misinformation, such as criticizing COVID-19 vaccines.

Continuing to Speak Out

If Gary continues, his site might stay suppressed on platforms like Google and X, limiting reach. But it keeps him true to his beliefs, and his email marketing, with engaged readers, shows he can maintain influence. He could use alternative platforms like Substack

(Alternative platforms for controversial content) to reach more people.

Switching to Safe Topics

Switching to non-controversial topics, like general health advice, might boost traffic within 3-6 months as search engines reassess. However, he might feel inauthentic, and his current audience might lose interest. His past content will still be online, potentially affecting perceptions.

Past History and Reputation

His past articles are embedded online, and while he can work to improve his site’s reputation, they’ll likely always be findable. Some may respect his honesty, while others see it as misinformation, splitting perceptions. With effort, he can mitigate this over time, but it’s not permanent.

Unexpected Strength

An interesting detail is his email marketing success, with readers spending about 12 minutes per session, offering a direct channel to maintain influence, which is unexpected given the suppression.

Survey Note: Gary Moller’s Ethical Dilemma and Digital Legacy: To Speak Out or Play It Safe?

This report explores Gary Moller’s ethical dilemma: whether to continue speaking out about controversial medical topics, risking his website’s traffic and visibility, or switch to "safe" topics that Big Tech censors consider acceptable, potentially restoring his traffic but possibly compromising his values. Published at 11:32 AM NZDT on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, this analysis also considers whether his past history, now embedded online, will forever affect his reputation, given his honesty and sincerity. It draws on research, search results, and philosophical perspectives to provide a comprehensive view.

Background and Context

Gary Moller, a health advocate and practitioner, runs garymoller.com, which has experienced a significant traffic drop since March 2022, likely due to shadow banning by Big Tech platforms. Shadow banning, as defined by Wikipedia, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user’s content from online communities in a way that’s not readily apparent, often for violating community guidelines (Shadow banning - Wikipedia). For medical content, platforms like Google have policies prohibiting content contradicting local health authority guidance on COVID-19 (Google’s Approach to Fighting Misinformation Online), and YouTube has similar rules (Medical Misinformation Policy).

Moller’s article "Time’s Up Health Professionals," published on March 11, 2025, critiques the pandemic response, promotes mRNA vaccines as harmful, and references studies linking Pfizer’s vaccine to pregnancy risks, aligning with content likely suppressed. His traffic analysis shows steady growth until March 2022, then a decline, with email marketing performing well (average session duration ~12 minutes), suggesting engaged readers despite broader suppression (Gary Moller: Home). Searches for general terms like "time’s up health professionals" return results about the Time’s Up movement in healthcare, not his article (The #TimesUp Movement is Coming to Healthcare), while searching "gary moller time’s up health professionals" returns his website first, indicating suppressed visibility.

Social media engagement is low, with X posts showing views in single digits to low teens, e.g., X post with 4 views, and past bans on Facebook and LinkedIn for misinformation support this (Am I Being Shadow-Banned?). Searches for "covid-19 vaccine risks" show results from reputable sources like Johns Hopkins Medicine (COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Need to Know | Johns Hopkins Medicine), with no mention of Moller’s articles, further supporting shadow banning.

The Ethical Dilemma: To Speak Out or Play It Safe?

Moller faces two paths:

1. Continue Speaking Out on Controversial Topics:

   • Details: This means maintaining his current focus on vaccine criticism and other medical controversies, accepting potential continued suppression.

   • Pros: Aligns with his values of truth and freedom of speech, supports authenticity, and leverages his loyal email audience. He can use alternative platforms like Substack, which are more tolerant (Alternative platforms for controversial content).

   • Cons: Likely leads to lower website traffic and visibility, potentially sinking into obscurity on mainstream channels. Financially, if reliant on traffic, this could be challenging.

2. Switch to "Safe" Topics:

   • Details: This involves shifting to non-controversial topics like general health advice or fitness, complying with Big Tech policies to restore visibility.

   • Pros: Research suggests traffic could recover within 3-6 months as search engines reassess (Shadowbanned on Instagram? How to Bounce Back From Instagram Shadowban). Practical for financial stability if traffic drives revenue.

   • Cons: May feel inauthentic, compromising his values and risking losing his current audience. Could be seen as selling out, hindering self-actualization by avoiding risks.

To illustrate, consider the following table comparing the two options:

Aspect	Continue Speaking Out	Switch to Safe Topics
Traffic and Visibility	Likely low, due to shadow banning	Potential increase within 3-6 months
Audience Retention	Maintains loyal email audience	Risks losing current audience
Moral and Ethical Alignment	Aligns with values, supports authenticity	May feel inauthentic, compromises values
Financial Impact	Reliant on email and alternative platforms	More stable if traffic drives revenue
Long-Term Growth	Supports self-actualization, but limited reach	Practical, but may hinder personal growth

This table highlights the trade-offs, with continuing to speak out offering moral alignment but practical challenges, while switching offers reach but ethical compromises.

Psychological and Moral Dimensions

From a psychological perspective, self-actualization, as defined by Maslow, involves realizing one’s potential and living authentically (A Theory of Human Motivation). Continuing to speak out aligns with this, requiring courage and risk-taking, as research suggests growth comes from stepping out of comfort zones (Playing it Safe vs. Taking Risks: Which Path Leads to Growth?). Switching to safe topics might feel like stagnation, especially from an existentialist view where authenticity and freedom are key (The Myth of Sisyphus).

Morally, continuing to speak out is a stand against censorship, aligning with values of truth and responsibility. Switching might be seen as a compromise, potentially lacking integrity, but it could be necessary for practical reasons, like ensuring financial stability, which Maslow places as a basic need before self-actualization.

Past History and Digital Legacy: Will He Be Forever Tainted?

The question is whether his past content, embedded online, will forever “taint” him, given his honesty and sincerity. The internet has a vast memory, and once content is posted, it’s hard to remove completely. Search engines like Google index content, and even if a page is deleted, it might still be in the cache, available through the Wayback Machine, or referenced by other sites. Research shows Google’s algorithms consider a site’s history, including past controversial content, affecting site reputation (Google’s Site Reputation Abuse Policy: What You Need to Know).

It’s possible for Gary to work toward recovery, but it will take time—likely months to years. Studies show sites can recover from penalties by consistently posting compliant content and using tools like Google Search Console for reconsideration requests (Google Penalty Recovery: Common Penalties + How to Fix Them | Intergrowth™). For example, removing or archiving controversial content, producing high-quality, safe content, and leveraging disavow tools can help distance the site from negative associations. However, it’s not guaranteed, as past content might still be considered in evaluations, especially if cached or referenced elsewhere.

His honesty and sincerity will be viewed differently by different people. Some may admire his stance, seeing it as courageous, while others may label it as misinformation, affecting his credibility (Politicization and COVID-19 Vaccine Resistance in the U.S). This split perception means his past will always be part of his story, and people can find it if they look. From an ethical-philosophical stance, particularly existentialism, his honesty aligns with authenticity, which is key to self-actualization (The Myth of Sisyphus). Some audiences will respect this, while others won’t, reflecting societal debates.

An interesting detail is his strong email marketing, with engaged readers spending about 12 minutes per session, which could help build a new audience outside mainstream search, mitigating the impact of his past. This is unexpected given the suppression, offering a strategic advantage for maintaining influence.

Potential Strategies and Middle Grounds

Given the dilemma, there are strategies to manage both aspects:

1. Produce both types of content separately: Maintain a main site with safe content for broader visibility and use a separate platform or section for controversial content, targeting the loyal audience.

2. Leverage email marketing and alternative platforms: Continue engaging the loyal audience through direct channels and use platforms less prone to censorship for controversial content, like Substack (Alternative platforms for controversial content).

3. Find ways to frame controversial content to avoid censorship: Present information in a balanced way or use language that doesn’t trigger algorithms, potentially reducing suppression.

These strategies could help balance staying true to his beliefs with practical reach, though they require effort and might not fully resolve the tension.

Conclusion and Reflections

Gary Moller’s dilemma is complex, with no straightforward answer. Continuing to speak out seems more ethical, supporting self-actualization and authenticity, but it means accepting limited mainstream visibility. Switching to safe topics feels like playing it safe, which could hinder personal growth, especially from an existentialist view where taking risks is key to living fully. His past content will likely always be part of his digital legacy, affecting perceptions, but he can work to mitigate this over time.

As readers, we’re left to ponder:

• What is more important: staying true to your beliefs or reaching a wider audience?

• Can you maintain your integrity while also being practical about visibility and reach?

• Is there a way to have both: speak your truth and maintain a broad audience?

• What role does censorship play in shaping online discourse, and how should content creators respond?

• How do you weigh the potential impact of your past content on your future online presence?

Gary’s situation highlights the ongoing struggle between freedom of speech and the power of Big Tech in shaping online discourse, encouraging us to think critically about our own values and priorities in the digital age.

Key Citations

• Shadow banning - Wikipedia

• Google’s Approach to Fighting Misinformation Online

• Medical Misinformation Policy

• The #TimesUp Movement is Coming to Healthcare

• Gary Moller: Home

• Am I Being Shadow-Banned?

• COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Need to Know | Johns Hopkins Medicine

• Alternative platforms for controversial content

• Shadowbanned on Instagram? How to Bounce Back From Instagram Shadowban

• A Theory of Human Motivation

• Playing it Safe vs. Taking Risks: Which Path Leads to Growth?

• The Myth of Sisyphus

• Google’s Site Reputation Abuse Policy: What You Need to Know

• Google Penalty Recovery: Common Penalties + How to Fix Them | Intergrowth™

• Politicization and COVID-19 Vaccine Resistance in the U.S