OpenAI marketing suggestions

Over the past several years I have made repeated attempts to spread links to my work — primarily through Facebook groups — on the assumption that Facebook, with its massive global user base, represented the best possible distribution channel. After all, if a major fraction of the human population has an account there, surely that must be the place to reach people.

But experience suggests otherwise.

Posting links into groups increasingly requires administrator approval, automated moderation frequently rejects substantive material as “spam,” and external links are routinely downranked by algorithms designed to keep users inside the platform. Even when posts are accepted, measurable impact is often unclear.

This raises a more serious strategic question:

If the goal is intellectual influence — not “likes” — where should serious ideas live?

At age 79 (80 on June 8), my priorities are somewhat different from what one might expect in the modern attention economy. I am not interested in virality. I am interested in survival — specifically, the survival of the Ganymede Hypothesis as an intellectual framework.

If an idea is worth advancing, it must outlive the algorithm of the moment.

Rethinking Distribution

The conclusion I’ve come to is this:

Facebook groups are no longer a discovery engine for long-form intellectual work. They function primarily as social ecosystems. External links are structurally disfavored. That reality is unlikely to change.

YouTube, by contrast, remains a searchable archive. It builds trust. It reaches younger audiences. And it allows structured arguments to exist in full context.

Substack — which I have yet to join — appears to offer something even more important: an email-based intellectual archive independent of social media algorithms.

The lesson is simple:

Mass exposure is not the same thing as durable influence.

Target Audiences Going Forward If the goal is maximum intellectual influence, the audiences that matter most are: Those interested in Velikovsky and catastrophism Those engaged in alternative cosmology Those concerned with Genesis, origins, and the Flood narrative Filmmakers and visual storytellers capable of translating large ideas into narrative form Individuals willing to mirror and archive material for long-term preservation

The objective is not to persuade billions.

The objective is to reach a few hundred serious minds capable of carrying the work forward.

The Next Step

Given this, my next move is clear.

I need to produce a clear, structured YouTube presentation of the new introductory framework — not as a casual reading, but as a challenge to cosmology, paleontology, and the philosophical assumptions underlying evolutionism.

The argument, if correct, does not place Christianity at war with real science. It places real science at war with outdated assumptions.

That is a very different claim.

Once that video exists, the next step will be to establish a Substack presence as an archival and intellectual anchor.

Final Thought

In earlier eras, ideas survived because they were printed in books and placed in libraries. In our time, survival depends on digital redundancy, disciplined presentation, and reaching younger thinkers who are willing to engage deeply rather than react emotionally.

The question is no longer “How many people can I post this link to?”

The question is:

Who is capable of understanding it — and what structures ensure it survives?

That is the problem now