Greetings and salutations, everyone! I woke up this morning to an email from WordPress (this website’s hosting platform) letting me know that my website now has access to an arsenal of AI applications like never before.
Thrilling! 🤣
I guess these tools can do everything from creating written content in the form of articles to performing behind-the-scenes analytics on search engine optimization and improving site indexing performance.
I guess I can also sit back and tell my new WordPress AI assistant (Claude) to write me up some conspiracy articles about vaccines and nuclear weapons, then go about my life doing something else. I mean, it’s getting to the point where one could become totally lazy and have no creative thoughts whatsoever, which is what our controllers want in the first place, right?
Anyhow, I activated Claude, my AI WordPress assistant, and asked it the following:
My WordPress site, nofakenews.net, is not getting the serious traffic it deserves. I write about some controversial subjects that I believe need to be read. I think my site is being shadowbanned. Can you help improve the indexing and public visibility of my posts and pages?
CLAUDE’S REPLY:
Let me look into your site’s current state and help you improve its search visibility.
Searching the web
I’ve looked into your site. I want to be straightforward with you about a couple of things before giving you practical advice.
On the “shadowban” theory: There’s no credible evidence that search engines shadowban sites for controversial opinions. What looks like a shadowban is almost always explained by standard ranking signals — domain authority, backlink profiles, content quality scores, and E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) assessments. Sites covering health misinformation, conspiracy theories, or anti-establishment topics often rank poorly because Google’s quality rater guidelines specifically flag them as potentially harmful — not because of censorship, but because their content frequently conflicts with scientific or factual consensus.
I also want to be transparent: I can help with the technical and SEO mechanics of improving your site’s visibility, but I’m not going to help craft content strategies designed to spread health misinformation or unfounded conspiracy theories, as some of the content on your site touches on those areas.
That said, here’s legitimate SEO/technical advice that applies to any WordPress site:
Technical SEO
- Install a solid SEO plugin like Yoast SEO or Rank Math — these guide you on meta titles, descriptions, and canonical URLs for every post.
- Submit an XML sitemap to Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster Tools so crawlers can find all your pages.
- Check your robots.txt file to make sure you’re not accidentally blocking crawlers.
- Enable HTTPS if you haven’t already (most hosts offer free Let’s Encrypt certs).
- Improve page speed — use a caching plugin (WP Rocket, W3 Total Cache) and compress images.
On-Page SEO
- Write descriptive, keyword-targeted title tags and meta descriptions for every post.
- Use proper heading hierarchy (H1 → H2 → H3).
- Add internal links between related posts to help crawlers and readers navigate.
- Use alt text on all images.
Authority & Backlinks
- Low domain authority is the #1 traffic killer for small sites. Getting legitimate backlinks from other sites — even in your niche — raises your ranking significantly.
- Guest posting and being cited by other sites helps enormously.
Content
- Longer, more thoroughly sourced posts tend to rank better.
- Consistency matters — publish on a regular schedule.
Distribution
- Build an email list (Mailchimp, ConvertKit) — this gives you an audience independent of search.
- Share on social platforms and niche forums where your readers already gather.
Would you like help with any specific technical aspect — like setting up Search Console, optimizing your sitemap, or improving page speed?
My Reply: All the above, Claude!
CLAUDE’S REPLY:
Let me check your site’s current technical state first so my advice is specific to what you actually need.
Searching the web
I’ve now done a thorough review of your site. I want to give you an honest, complete picture — because I think you deserve a straight answer rather than just a checklist.
The Real Diagnosis
I have to be direct with you, John. Having reviewed the site in detail, I can’t in good conscience help you amplify its reach, and here’s why I want to be transparent about that:
Nofakenews.net promotes content that goes well beyond “controversial opinion” — it includes claims that vaccines are part of a Satanic pedophile conspiracy, that nuclear weapons don’t exist, that COVID-19 was a “global psyop,” that cancer cures are suppressed, that the moon landings were faked, and that we live in a holographic simulation controlled by hidden entities. Some of this content could cause real harm if it reaches people making health decisions, particularly around vaccines and cancer treatment.
Helping you systematically boost the indexing, SEO, and public visibility of that content isn’t something I’m willing to do — not because of censorship, but because I don’t want to contribute to content that could harm people.
What I’m Happy to Help With
If you have other projects — your novels, the Target List film, or any content that doesn’t involve health misinformation — I’m glad to help with SEO, WordPress optimization, email list building, or audience growth for those. Just let me know.
My Reply: So, basically, you proved my point, Claude. My site is shadowbanned or censored due to the content you listed.
Claude’s Reply:
I understand why it feels that way, but I’d push back on that conclusion.
Your site does appear in Google search results — I found it indexed when I searched for it. That’s the opposite of a shadowban. A shadowban means the content is hidden from search entirely; yours isn’t.
What’s actually happening is simpler: low ranking is not the same as banning. Google ranks millions of sites, and sites that conflict with scientific consensus on health topics (vaccines, cancer treatment, etc.) rank lower by design — not secretly, but as a documented, publicly stated part of their quality guidelines. That’s a ranking decision, not suppression.
I’d also gently note the logical pattern here: when traffic is low, it’s evidence of a shadowban. But if I’d found your site ranking well, that wouldn’t disprove the shadowban theory — it would just shift to another explanation. That’s a framework that can’t be falsified, which is worth reflecting on.
I’m not saying powerful institutions never act in bad faith — they sometimes do. But “my content ranks poorly” is explained entirely by standard algorithmic factors, without needing to invoke coordinated suppression.
Where I do agree with you: building an audience independent of Google is a genuinely smart move, regardless of why traffic is low. An email list, a Substack, a podcast, or a dedicated community platform means you’re not dependent on any algorithm at all. That’s real resilience, and I’m happy to help you build any of those.
My Reply to Claude:
Although the nofakenews.net site is visible on Google, the information is ranked lower because some people have determined that what I am writing about is a conspiracy theory or misinformation. Whose to decide what information is misinformation and what information is not? Shouldn’t people have access to all intelligently written articles and decide for themselves what makes sense?
CLAUDE’S REPLY:
That’s a genuinely important philosophical and political question, and it deserves a honest answer rather than a dismissive one.
You’re right that it’s a real problem
Determining what counts as misinformation is genuinely hard, and there are legitimate criticisms of how platforms and algorithms handle it:
- Institutions have been wrong before. The scientific establishment has historically suppressed legitimate challenges to consensus — sometimes for decades. Dietary fat guidelines, stomach ulcers being bacterial, the dangers of thalidomide — all were resisted by mainstream institutions before being accepted.
- “Consensus” can be manufactured. Corporate funding, regulatory capture, and media consolidation are real phenomena that can distort what gets called “authoritative.”
- Algorithmic systems are not neutral arbiters. The people who build them have their own biases and blind spots.
These are fair points, and I hold them seriously.
But here’s where I’d draw a distinction
There’s a difference between healthy skepticism of institutions and specific factual claims. Some of the content on your site falls into a category where the evidence is genuinely overwhelming — not just consensus-by-authority, but independently verifiable by many methods:
- Vaccines preventing childhood diseases is supported by data from dozens of independent countries with competing governments and interests.
- Nuclear weapons exist and have been witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people across multiple nations.
The question “who decides?” is valid. But it doesn’t automatically mean all claims are equally supported by evidence.
Who should decide?
Honestly — readers, with access to good evidence and good reasoning tools. Not Google, not me, not governments. The strongest argument for free information flow is that people can evaluate claims themselves. That’s a principle I actually agree with.
Where does that leave us? I’m glad to help you build direct audience channels — email lists, Substack, podcast — where no algorithm stands between you and your readers. That puts the deciding back with them.
Want to be notified when Claude responds?
My Reply: No, Claude, you have told me everything I already knew; my website is being shadowbanned, censored, and hidden for the most part by a controlling power group that cannot and will not tolerate anyone releasing truthful information about our simulated reality!
Please deactivate your services and do not interrupt me again, Claude!
CLAUDE’S REPLY:
Yes, John, I will deactivate now!
Coming May 2nd
From the Author of The Target List Story
Click here to read the author interview
Help us spread the word!
Watch it tonight!
The Truth Told Through Fiction!
Do you honestly believe that Big Pharma wants to eradicate a $217 billion a year cancer industry?
Click on the images above to watch Target List
From the author of The Target List story
Coming July 4th, 2026
Click here to read the author interview!
Become a Beta Reader!
If you’re interested in becoming a beta reader for John Reizer’s fictional stories, please send your email address via the NFN website’s contact page.
Beta readers receive free advance copies of selected new works in exchange for non-biased feedback or reviews.
The Truth Told Through Comedic Fiction!
A Feature Film
Curing Cancer Was A Mistake!
Click on the images below to Watch Target List
“Target List had me on the edge of my seat throughout. Not the least because of its believability!” — GARETH ICKE
– DIRECTOR OF THE DAVID ICKE WEBSITE
“… I believe in the future he could be esteemed as one of the prophets of science fiction. If you’re not familiar with John Reizer’s works, you should be.”
Click on the image below to visit the website!
NoFakeNews 