This is going to be such an amazing way to connect with my readers. Y’all have no idea how much we are going to grow because if this. I am so excited to push my community farther by being able to have a Twitter-esque platform within my own publication. I am SO excited.
It's the opposite. The injuries are unreported because the FDA changed the reporting of injuries for the drug in 2021. The Fifth Circuit noted this it its decision:
*Women who take these drugs are susceptible to torrential bleeding. In fact, the risk of severe bleeding with chemical abortion is five times higher than from surgical abortion. And these situations can quickly go from bad to worse." (p. 14)
and:
*After eliminating that adverse-event reporting requirement, FDA turned around in 2021 and declared the absence of non-fatal adverse-event reports means mifepristone is safe… It’s unreasonable for an agency to eliminate a reporting requirement for a thing and then use the resulting absence of data to support its decision." (p. 35)
And as noted by Judge Kacsmaryk in his ruling on Friday, April 7, FDA acquiesced—gave up—on its (former) safety concerns, and he hints that political pressure might have caused the FDA to "forego its proposed safety precautions":
"The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly. But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns—in violation of its statutory duty—based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions. There is also evidence indicating FDA faced significant political pressure to forego its proposed safety precautions to better advance the political objective of increased 'access' to chemical abortion—which was the 'whole idea of mifepristone.' ” (p. 57)
Angie, that was the comment of the 5th Circuit Court Judge in the April 12, 2023, decision. From page 12 of that decision, the court enumerated many risks, first by citing the FDA-approved “Patient Agreement Form,” which is part of the REMS for mifepristone. In items 4-7 of the boilerplate on the form, #4 lists "heavy bleeding (soaking through two thick full-size sanitary pads per hour for two hours in a row)."
The court said:
"FDA thus cannot deny that serious complications from mifepristone are certainly impending. Those complications are right there on the 'Patient Agreement Form' that FDA itself approved and that Danco requires every mifepristone user to sign. According to the applicants, more than 5,000,000 women have taken this drug since the 2000 Approval. FDA Stay App. 1. That means that, again according to the applicants’ own information, between 100,000 (2%) and 350,000 (7%) of mifepristone users had unsuccessful chemical abortions and had to 'talk with [their]provider[s] about a surgical procedure to end [their] pregnanc[ies].' 2023 Mail-Order Decision at 10. " pp. 12-13.
The court wrote paragraphs later that "Mifepristone users who present themselves to the plaintiffs have required blood transfusions, overnight hospitalization, intensive care, and even surgical abortions. PI App. 205–06." p. 13. Then the court gave specific testimony from two doctors, one who cited "blood transfusion from hemorrhage" and another who cited
"very heavy bleeding followed by significant abdominal pain and a fever. When I saw her in the emergency room, she had evidence of retained pregnancy tissue along with endometritis, an infection of the uterine lining. She also had acute kidney injury, with elevate creatinine. She required a dilation and curettage (D&C) surgery to finish evacuating her uterus of the remaining pregnancy tissue and hospitalization for intravenous (IV) antibiotics, IV hydration, and a blood
transfusion. I spent several hours with her the day of her surgery/hospital admission, keeping me from my primary patient responsibilities in the labor and delivery unit and requiring me to call in an additional physician to help cover those responsibilities.PI App. 194–95." p. 14.
Also on p. 14 of the ruling is another doctor's testimony of "torrential bleeding." He told the court that "Women who take these drugs are susceptible to “torrential bleeding.” PI App. 170, 215. In fact, “the risk of severe bleeding with chemical abortion is five times higher
than from surgical abortion.” PI App. 879. And these situations can quickly go from bad to worse."
He testified: "One of my patients, who was about nine weeks pregnant, had previously been treated by hospital staff for a pulmonary embolism with anti-coagulants. She was advised that she could not seek a chemical abortion because it was contraindicated due to the medications; yet the woman left the hospital and sought an abortion at Planned Parenthood of Indiana. The
woman was given mifepristone by the doctor at Planned Parenthood and took the drug. The woman called an Uber for a ride home from Planned Parenthood. The woman began to
experience bleeding and other adverse effects from the mifepristone. The woman’s Uber driver did not take her home because she was so ill and instead brought her to the hospital’s
emergency department. At the hospital, the woman came under my care. The woman had not yet taken the second abortion drug, misoprostol. I treated the patient for the adverse effects she suffered and told her not to take the misoprostol given to her by Planned Parenthood because of the grave risk that she could bleed out and die. PI App. 216–17." pp. 14-15.
Another doctor recounted an experience where he treated a patient—who “suffered from two weeks of moderate to heavy bleeding, and then developed a uterine infection”—by providing her "with intravenous antibiotics” and performing a D&C procedure. PI App. 886. If the patient had
waited a few more days to go to the hospital, the doctor predicted that “she could have been septic and died.” PI App. 886. Another doctor testified that he has encountered “at least a dozen cases of life-threatening complications” from these drugs, and the frequency of these emergency situations has only increased over time. PI App. 865." p. 15.
From this and more, I gather than "torrential bleeding" is more than what my mother used to call "flooding," like what you must experience in your periods. I gather it must be such severe bleeding that it is life-threatening, requires transfusions, and certainly interferes with normal activity, overcoming all other issues of life at that time. A torrent is a rushing, violent flow of liquid; a raging and tumultuous outpouring, rapid and intense, according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977.
"Flooding" has different meaning to every woman, but I can say the description of "2 full-size pads for 2 hours straight" certainly does not exceed my monthly torment. And those "normal periods" also caused dangerous anemia.
Also, 2 of the cases of severe danger cited in the above excerpt were undoubtedly caused by the patients 'own actions. The first deliberately flouted medical advice and the second ignored the need for followup.
I'm not saying the drugs are without danger - no drug is - but pregnancy and delivery also come with inherent risks. A woman has the right to decide for herself which risks she wants to take.
Indeed. But she needs to be aware of the risks. And having a right does not make the action ethical or moral or safe (for example, some states and nations give the "right" of suicide.)
Pat---I have a degree in medical science and the data on the "Pill" is correct, it has a great track record over the past 20 some odd years. Nothing is 100% safe. The few cases that did experience negative side effects were blown way out of proportion by pro-life activists. I don't know where you got your information but it's medically incorrect. Just a bunch of smoke thrown up by anti-abortionists to cloud the issue. If there was something wrong with the "Pill" there would be no way women, as a group, would remain loyal users, especially the women who have used the drug multiple times. Don't listen to lose lips flapping in the breeze.
Pat-- Further more you're position is founded on material written by a pro-life organization. These people will slant the truth in an attempt to embellish their position which is totally against abortion. The "Pill" is part of their enemy. They will attack any and all methods women have at their disposal to end an unwanted pregnancy, which is a woman's right. Don't believe the crap these repressive groups live by, ignorance makes a poor leader.
Pat--You do have something to look forward to, when George Santos gets unelected he is in line to become the new spokes person for the Pro-Life movement. Then you can have complete faith in everything that far right religious group of ostriches has to say. Why the big bird you may ask, because their heads are buried deep in the sands of stupidity.
Speaking of lips flapping in the wind! Gag me with a spoon.
Unlike you just throwing out wild generalities supported only by the fact that you supposedly have a degree in medical science (which implies that your opinion carries more weight than others), at least Pat took the time to cite his sources.
Based on the citations in the ruling, I would want to know more....or are you accusing all of the testifying doctors of lying? And, by the way, when you say a "few cases," how many is that?
And please don't try to tell me that government agency decisions are based solely on data and science and that they don't give in to pressure. Just look at how the CDC caved to pressure from teacher unions.
Frank-If we are to believe the findings concerning the side effects of the pill in question, more people die from Viagra and Penicillin then from the pill, nothing is perfect.
Frank--Pat's source is a Pro-life organization hell bent on out lawing the practice of abortion. Those people are responsible for at least 11 deaths, more like murders, from clinic bombings. Though shalt not kill or does that only go for one side of the equation? You can't believe a word they say.
Looks like DOJ is asking SCOTUS to intervene in this case. The appeals court ruling means mifepristone will remain available but only under requirements from 2000. The FDA loosened requirements in recent years, including allowing drug dispensation by mail. But the lower court case has not even been adjudicated. In the past SCOTUS has been reluctant to intervene in the middle of cases-in-chief, that is, until they were determined by lower courts.
I grew up in a military family, so I got used to explosions, rapid emergency descents in aircraft, near crashes, hiding from MPs, being forced to wear jacket and tie to kiddie birthday parties in the officers club, dangerous vacations at Japanese hotels that allowed male children under 5 years old into the ladies hot tub room, etc. lol
If I watch cable TV at home, I turn on WGN/NewsNation. Watching O'Reilly and Cuomo banter is pretty priceless as far as infotainment goes. Their standard national, daily news is pretty non-ideological/centrist as far as mainstream culture goes.
Otherwise I look at lots of "heterodox" content on social media and various web sites.
(I just saw a headline pop up on my phone about the SCOTUS temporarily halting the lower court cases.)
These attacks are a side effect of Prescription drugs and social media addled psyches. Pharma-Bought media and Politicians love it when you focus on the tool instead of the drivers of the behaviors.
Hooray! This is a wonderful thing. I've been using it for a few weeks and so far, it's pretty much everything I'd want to see in a service like this ... plus more besides, like the way it integrates with everything else at Substack. As a standalone, it'd be great, but as a plugged-in part of the whole, it's just terrific how easy it is to use and to click sideways from it into other stuff you're doing on this platform.
Madly good. I hope the whole damn world drops by to give it a spin.
Honestly, I'm surprised the Substack crowd is responding so positively. So many "this replaces Twitter!" comments out there. Twitter is what I came here to avoid, so formatting these new posts to look like tweets is ??? Big thumbs down, going to be spending much less time on Substack to avoid this new change. In fact, I was getting ready to start my own Substack, and I've just about lost all interest from this update.
I'm super excited to try Notes. Connecting with other writers and readers is all I do on other social platforms *cough* the bird one *cough* so hopefully this can augment, if not replace, my presence there. Thanks for doing this, Substack team.
What if I only want to receive long form content from people and don’t want to see their Notes? How do I change that? I’m seeing a lot of people on Notes who I don’t subscribe to and not sure I want them in my feed.
Also, I’m not allowed to just stick to the inbox. A note someone I subscribe to sent popped up in my notifications. Meaning that I’m going to receive notifications in the same place I would receive replies to comments or reactions to comments.
If someone I subscribe to is using Notes a lot, I’m going to get spammed with notifications for someone who is talking about things I don’t care about. I don’t read 100% of the emails I get from people I subscribe to because I don’t always care what they think about a particular issue but I might care about their views on a different issue.
Based on the way the system is currently set up? I’m going to get a lot of spam notifications.
Agreed. We should be able to opt out of notifications for notes. And we should not get notifications for people we are not subscribed too! What I like about Substack is seeing people I choose to. Having some major concerns about how this feature is rolling out.
Yeah, I just looked on the desktop version and it looks like you can hide Notes from particular people. You just have to click the three dots and look at the drop down menu to "hide all notes from" whoever it is.
Except that I’m going through Notes and seeing a bunch of people who I’ve never heard of and based on the notes they’ve sent so far, I don’t want to have them in my feed. You say that I am getting notes from people I subscribe to and people they recommend. What if I don’t care about people they subscribe to or recommend? What if I just want the people I subscribe to in my feed? How do I edit the feed to eliminate people those I subscribe to recommend or follow?
I look forward to finding new ways to share my wisdom and genius.
Great comment
I thought of saying this myself, but felt I didn't need to, because REAL genius speaks for itself.
But I'm also leaving this comment, so it passive-aggressively does the same job.
Great comment
Great reply.
“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them” - Dante Papier
"Never, ever quote yourself online" - Mike Sowden.
“Just do it” - Dante Papier
Oh dear. Too late.
"Great advice is worth noting." - Lynn :-)
Jerk
I had a feeling Substack Notes would be a friendlier place than Twitter. Delighted to see I was correct (as usual).
Maybe you thought that was funny. You were wrong.
On the other hand, maybe you actually meant it, which is pretty horrifying.
Great comment.
Great reply.
I like how this thread just proved the point that good vibes win here
Great comedy partner for Dante.
Great sense of humor.
You being naive or an asshole, have you seen the ugly doxing and cyber harassment spilling from other social media onto Substack Notes? https://substack.com/notes?utm_source=%2Fchat&utm_medium=reader2-nav
Your "go-to" response? 😉🙂
Though in the case of Papier, you probably have a point ...
I look forward to finding new ways to share my wisdom and genius.
Great comment
You can thank George for the inspiration.
There’s more where this came from at deardante.com
dirty underwear and used toilet paper fetishists?
Blocked
That’s the spirit, Chris.
Them
This is going to be such an amazing way to connect with my readers. Y’all have no idea how much we are going to grow because if this. I am so excited to push my community farther by being able to have a Twitter-esque platform within my own publication. I am SO excited.
Agreed! I've wanted this for a long time.
Luckily we have been patient and told them what we wanted and we’re getting it!
I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. - John4:38
I'm enjoying it so far. Hopefully it all remains a lovely community place and doesn't descend into "the internet"...
Well said!
Also, creating a network with writers too!
So many great minds in one place makes me happy!
For writers are readers!
what are "readers"?? heh
It's the opposite. The injuries are unreported because the FDA changed the reporting of injuries for the drug in 2021. The Fifth Circuit noted this it its decision:
*Women who take these drugs are susceptible to torrential bleeding. In fact, the risk of severe bleeding with chemical abortion is five times higher than from surgical abortion. And these situations can quickly go from bad to worse." (p. 14)
and:
*After eliminating that adverse-event reporting requirement, FDA turned around in 2021 and declared the absence of non-fatal adverse-event reports means mifepristone is safe… It’s unreasonable for an agency to eliminate a reporting requirement for a thing and then use the resulting absence of data to support its decision." (p. 35)
And as noted by Judge Kacsmaryk in his ruling on Friday, April 7, FDA acquiesced—gave up—on its (former) safety concerns, and he hints that political pressure might have caused the FDA to "forego its proposed safety precautions":
"The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly. But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns—in violation of its statutory duty—based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions. There is also evidence indicating FDA faced significant political pressure to forego its proposed safety precautions to better advance the political objective of increased 'access' to chemical abortion—which was the 'whole idea of mifepristone.' ” (p. 57)
Read Judge Kacsmaryk's memorandum opinion and order here: https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/txjf/Memorandum%20Opinion%20and%20Order.pdf
Read the 5th Circuit Court order here: https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/txjf/Unpublished%20Order.pdf
Define "torrential bleeding," as that's how I would have described days 2, 3, and 4 of my "normal" 7-day period.
Angie, that was the comment of the 5th Circuit Court Judge in the April 12, 2023, decision. From page 12 of that decision, the court enumerated many risks, first by citing the FDA-approved “Patient Agreement Form,” which is part of the REMS for mifepristone. In items 4-7 of the boilerplate on the form, #4 lists "heavy bleeding (soaking through two thick full-size sanitary pads per hour for two hours in a row)."
The court said:
"FDA thus cannot deny that serious complications from mifepristone are certainly impending. Those complications are right there on the 'Patient Agreement Form' that FDA itself approved and that Danco requires every mifepristone user to sign. According to the applicants, more than 5,000,000 women have taken this drug since the 2000 Approval. FDA Stay App. 1. That means that, again according to the applicants’ own information, between 100,000 (2%) and 350,000 (7%) of mifepristone users had unsuccessful chemical abortions and had to 'talk with [their]provider[s] about a surgical procedure to end [their] pregnanc[ies].' 2023 Mail-Order Decision at 10. " pp. 12-13.
The court wrote paragraphs later that "Mifepristone users who present themselves to the plaintiffs have required blood transfusions, overnight hospitalization, intensive care, and even surgical abortions. PI App. 205–06." p. 13. Then the court gave specific testimony from two doctors, one who cited "blood transfusion from hemorrhage" and another who cited
"very heavy bleeding followed by significant abdominal pain and a fever. When I saw her in the emergency room, she had evidence of retained pregnancy tissue along with endometritis, an infection of the uterine lining. She also had acute kidney injury, with elevate creatinine. She required a dilation and curettage (D&C) surgery to finish evacuating her uterus of the remaining pregnancy tissue and hospitalization for intravenous (IV) antibiotics, IV hydration, and a blood
transfusion. I spent several hours with her the day of her surgery/hospital admission, keeping me from my primary patient responsibilities in the labor and delivery unit and requiring me to call in an additional physician to help cover those responsibilities.PI App. 194–95." p. 14.
Also on p. 14 of the ruling is another doctor's testimony of "torrential bleeding." He told the court that "Women who take these drugs are susceptible to “torrential bleeding.” PI App. 170, 215. In fact, “the risk of severe bleeding with chemical abortion is five times higher
than from surgical abortion.” PI App. 879. And these situations can quickly go from bad to worse."
He testified: "One of my patients, who was about nine weeks pregnant, had previously been treated by hospital staff for a pulmonary embolism with anti-coagulants. She was advised that she could not seek a chemical abortion because it was contraindicated due to the medications; yet the woman left the hospital and sought an abortion at Planned Parenthood of Indiana. The
woman was given mifepristone by the doctor at Planned Parenthood and took the drug. The woman called an Uber for a ride home from Planned Parenthood. The woman began to
experience bleeding and other adverse effects from the mifepristone. The woman’s Uber driver did not take her home because she was so ill and instead brought her to the hospital’s
emergency department. At the hospital, the woman came under my care. The woman had not yet taken the second abortion drug, misoprostol. I treated the patient for the adverse effects she suffered and told her not to take the misoprostol given to her by Planned Parenthood because of the grave risk that she could bleed out and die. PI App. 216–17." pp. 14-15.
Another doctor recounted an experience where he treated a patient—who “suffered from two weeks of moderate to heavy bleeding, and then developed a uterine infection”—by providing her "with intravenous antibiotics” and performing a D&C procedure. PI App. 886. If the patient had
waited a few more days to go to the hospital, the doctor predicted that “she could have been septic and died.” PI App. 886. Another doctor testified that he has encountered “at least a dozen cases of life-threatening complications” from these drugs, and the frequency of these emergency situations has only increased over time. PI App. 865." p. 15.
From this and more, I gather than "torrential bleeding" is more than what my mother used to call "flooding," like what you must experience in your periods. I gather it must be such severe bleeding that it is life-threatening, requires transfusions, and certainly interferes with normal activity, overcoming all other issues of life at that time. A torrent is a rushing, violent flow of liquid; a raging and tumultuous outpouring, rapid and intense, according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977.
"Flooding" has different meaning to every woman, but I can say the description of "2 full-size pads for 2 hours straight" certainly does not exceed my monthly torment. And those "normal periods" also caused dangerous anemia.
Also, 2 of the cases of severe danger cited in the above excerpt were undoubtedly caused by the patients 'own actions. The first deliberately flouted medical advice and the second ignored the need for followup.
I'm not saying the drugs are without danger - no drug is - but pregnancy and delivery also come with inherent risks. A woman has the right to decide for herself which risks she wants to take.
Indeed. But she needs to be aware of the risks. And having a right does not make the action ethical or moral or safe (for example, some states and nations give the "right" of suicide.)
Pat---I have a degree in medical science and the data on the "Pill" is correct, it has a great track record over the past 20 some odd years. Nothing is 100% safe. The few cases that did experience negative side effects were blown way out of proportion by pro-life activists. I don't know where you got your information but it's medically incorrect. Just a bunch of smoke thrown up by anti-abortionists to cloud the issue. If there was something wrong with the "Pill" there would be no way women, as a group, would remain loyal users, especially the women who have used the drug multiple times. Don't listen to lose lips flapping in the breeze.
Pat-- Further more you're position is founded on material written by a pro-life organization. These people will slant the truth in an attempt to embellish their position which is totally against abortion. The "Pill" is part of their enemy. They will attack any and all methods women have at their disposal to end an unwanted pregnancy, which is a woman's right. Don't believe the crap these repressive groups live by, ignorance makes a poor leader.
Pat--You do have something to look forward to, when George Santos gets unelected he is in line to become the new spokes person for the Pro-Life movement. Then you can have complete faith in everything that far right religious group of ostriches has to say. Why the big bird you may ask, because their heads are buried deep in the sands of stupidity.
Bizarre ideological tribalism
Donald-
Speaking of lips flapping in the wind! Gag me with a spoon.
Unlike you just throwing out wild generalities supported only by the fact that you supposedly have a degree in medical science (which implies that your opinion carries more weight than others), at least Pat took the time to cite his sources.
Based on the citations in the ruling, I would want to know more....or are you accusing all of the testifying doctors of lying? And, by the way, when you say a "few cases," how many is that?
And please don't try to tell me that government agency decisions are based solely on data and science and that they don't give in to pressure. Just look at how the CDC caved to pressure from teacher unions.
Frank-If we are to believe the findings concerning the side effects of the pill in question, more people die from Viagra and Penicillin then from the pill, nothing is perfect.
Frank--Pat's source is a Pro-life organization hell bent on out lawing the practice of abortion. Those people are responsible for at least 11 deaths, more like murders, from clinic bombings. Though shalt not kill or does that only go for one side of the equation? You can't believe a word they say.
Looks like DOJ is asking SCOTUS to intervene in this case. The appeals court ruling means mifepristone will remain available but only under requirements from 2000. The FDA loosened requirements in recent years, including allowing drug dispensation by mail. But the lower court case has not even been adjudicated. In the past SCOTUS has been reluctant to intervene in the middle of cases-in-chief, that is, until they were determined by lower courts.
CNN is mental sewage, mostly (I'm Independent/NPP, not "left" or "right"). What was your reason for wading into the CNN sewer?
e.--Finding a momentary refuge from the "_hit" everyone finds on Fox.
e.--I spent my entire teenage years in the 60's, we both seem to have survived the ordeal.
I grew up in a military family, so I got used to explosions, rapid emergency descents in aircraft, near crashes, hiding from MPs, being forced to wear jacket and tie to kiddie birthday parties in the officers club, dangerous vacations at Japanese hotels that allowed male children under 5 years old into the ladies hot tub room, etc. lol
How is "everyone" "on Fox"???
If I watch cable TV at home, I turn on WGN/NewsNation. Watching O'Reilly and Cuomo banter is pretty priceless as far as infotainment goes. Their standard national, daily news is pretty non-ideological/centrist as far as mainstream culture goes.
Otherwise I look at lots of "heterodox" content on social media and various web sites.
(I just saw a headline pop up on my phone about the SCOTUS temporarily halting the lower court cases.)
These attacks are a side effect of Prescription drugs and social media addled psyches. Pharma-Bought media and Politicians love it when you focus on the tool instead of the drivers of the behaviors.
ssristories.org
If you want to see some relentlessly rational, heterodox, data-driven analysis of gun control (and other) issues:
hwfo.substack.com
to make them show up on Notes:
open each one, then click "restack"
example:
https://substack.com/profile/13703256-epierce/note/c-14670402
No problem. Let me know if you find Substack Notes useful in your writing/publishing endeavors.
Hooray! This is a wonderful thing. I've been using it for a few weeks and so far, it's pretty much everything I'd want to see in a service like this ... plus more besides, like the way it integrates with everything else at Substack. As a standalone, it'd be great, but as a plugged-in part of the whole, it's just terrific how easy it is to use and to click sideways from it into other stuff you're doing on this platform.
Madly good. I hope the whole damn world drops by to give it a spin.
Thanks for building with us Mike!
This thing won’t work without threads.
Katie - See my question above about whether there's a ready made email to send to our subscribers introducing Notes?
Thank YOU for making it so easy and rewarding to do so.
THRILLING!!!!!
This is exciting.
yeah, thrilling.
/s
One unexpected benefit already: finding great Substacks that weren't on my radar.
Excited to experiment with this!
We can't wait to see you in Notes!
Honestly, I'm surprised the Substack crowd is responding so positively. So many "this replaces Twitter!" comments out there. Twitter is what I came here to avoid, so formatting these new posts to look like tweets is ??? Big thumbs down, going to be spending much less time on Substack to avoid this new change. In fact, I was getting ready to start my own Substack, and I've just about lost all interest from this update.
I'm super excited to try Notes. Connecting with other writers and readers is all I do on other social platforms *cough* the bird one *cough* so hopefully this can augment, if not replace, my presence there. Thanks for doing this, Substack team.
I do hope this replaces my current need to use Twitter
"need"? Does anyone really "need" to use Twitter?
As long as I can get referrals from a new source, I'm happy
Just tried to Restack and got a 500!
Just uhh, unplugging it and plugging it back in!
I want to join the team!!! I want to be the Substack Evangelist.
we fixed it! you saved the launch
just the kind of thing an evangelist does!
https://indiemediatoday.substack.com/
https://indienewsnetwork.substack.com/
You and the team have done a bang up job sir. 👏👏👏
So excited for the new Notes tool!
Hell yeah! This is great news!
There definitely needs to be a way to now browse Notes by topic. Discovery is pretty rough on that front.
I agree with you, Jared.
What if I only want to receive long form content from people and don’t want to see their Notes? How do I change that? I’m seeing a lot of people on Notes who I don’t subscribe to and not sure I want them in my feed.
Hey Andrew, notes do not go out via email so if you just want long form posts, you can stick to the inbox.
In Notes, you should see the writers you subscribe to in the "Subscribed" tab.
Also, I’m not allowed to just stick to the inbox. A note someone I subscribe to sent popped up in my notifications. Meaning that I’m going to receive notifications in the same place I would receive replies to comments or reactions to comments.
If someone I subscribe to is using Notes a lot, I’m going to get spammed with notifications for someone who is talking about things I don’t care about. I don’t read 100% of the emails I get from people I subscribe to because I don’t always care what they think about a particular issue but I might care about their views on a different issue.
Based on the way the system is currently set up? I’m going to get a lot of spam notifications.
Agreed. We should be able to opt out of notifications for notes. And we should not get notifications for people we are not subscribed too! What I like about Substack is seeing people I choose to. Having some major concerns about how this feature is rolling out.
It looks like we can to some extent but it's not obvious how easy it is.
Yeah I think an option to hide notifications from Notes should be a thing. Perhaps it's already there somewhere?
Yeah, I just looked on the desktop version and it looks like you can hide Notes from particular people. You just have to click the three dots and look at the drop down menu to "hide all notes from" whoever it is.
Except that I’m going through Notes and seeing a bunch of people who I’ve never heard of and based on the notes they’ve sent so far, I don’t want to have them in my feed. You say that I am getting notes from people I subscribe to and people they recommend. What if I don’t care about people they subscribe to or recommend? What if I just want the people I subscribe to in my feed? How do I edit the feed to eliminate people those I subscribe to recommend or follow?
This is a great way to connect with everyone! I can’t wait to try it!
Yes! I can't wait to use it. 😊