RE: Mama, There’s a Plagiarist Behind You
The full timeline and my thoughts
I don’t know if anyone still cares about this but I wrote about it anyways lol.
This was initially going to be in my Weekly Newsletter under my What I Read This Week section. I was going to give a very small summary of what was happening and talk about my feelings regarding the situation.
However, once I started writing, it didn't feel right for me to give my opinion on a story that I'm not fully educated on. So I started constructing a timeline to make sure I wasn't missing or glossing over any facts that would change my opinion regarding situation.
Originally, I just started collecting the initial timeline in my draft so I could easily reference it while writing. Then once I hit 2,000 words with just the timeline, I was like this needs to be its own piece.
This is honestly something I would never write about. At face value, I basically understood what was going on, and I felt like it didn't need more input. However, as I learned more information while constructing this timeline, there are some things that weren’t sitting right with me spiritually.
Another reason why I think the timeline is really important is because I think a lot of us on the internet, even with our writing backgrounds, kind of can't be bothered to look into and authenticate information.
I know there's a subsection of Substack users and writers who don't have a formal writing background, use this app for fun, or really don’t care about this — which I get. However, on the flip side, if you're coming from more of an academic or journalistic background, the situation is very serious.
It's also important to note that the original story by Katy is less about The Plagiarist, and more about her feelings regarding the situation and the dumpster fire that is today's media world.
The timeline is a bit convoluted since everything happened pretty fast. I did my best to keep everything clear and concise, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some things become outdated or don’t make a ton of sense. (Also if there are grammar, writing mistakes.)
Also, three extremely important notes:
The Plagiarist took down her plagiarized post in March 2024, and I have no way to see the original post other than a few cropped screenshots shared by both parties. I tried looking for the URL to pull an archived copy, but nothing </3
I do not know nor have I ever talked to either people in this story- I am writing this as an observer.
Finally, this is not an excuse to dogpile on The Plagiarist. It is clear that she has already received and is still receiving criticism and hate, that is affecting her presence online and offline.
I wasn’t going to add a subscribe button but I spent way too much time on this. I talk about beauty, art, movies, fashion, etc. :) However, if these subjects don’t interest you, please don’t feel obligated. I would really enjoy a comment from you though!
Timeline
Background
On July 28, 2025, writer Katie Jgln of the Substack The Noösphere — which Katie started to talk about things that anger her — posted about how over one year ago, her work was plagiarized.
Now, this is on brand for Katie’s Substack because she has every right to be angry about this and talk about it whenever she wants. However, what makes the timing important is that the person who plagiarized her, recently became a Substack #1 bestseller. The plagiarist in question is maalvika, and she runs the learning-loving & meaning-making Substack.
I am going to keep the background short (update: I ended up writing a 2,000+ word timeline), since I am pretty sure y’all already know what is going on. Basically, Maalvika copied this essay by Katie Jgln about the influence social media algorithms have on promoting misogynistic content. Katie published it on February 09, 2024.
Then, about a month later, Maalvika published something almost identical on March 13, 2024.
You can read Katie’s original post to understand how she found out, and how she reacted here.
In Katie’s post, it was made super clear, just by the photo comparison of both articles, that Katie is 100% right. Maalvika LEGIT stole Katie’s work practically verbatim. The photo comparison from Katie’s post (Maalvika to the left and Katie to the right):
Katie’s article screenshot is slightly cut off at the beginning but it is only a few sentences, which Maalvika graciously decided not to include in her post. However, you can see, it is legit copied with a few words changed here and there.
When Maalvika became a #1 bestseller, Katie posted this note below, which blew up (Substack-wise), and led Katie to publish her Mama, There’s a Plagiarist Behind You post a day later-
One Year Ago (Kind Of)
I was actually shocked when I looked up Maalvika and learned she has a HUGE TikTok following (180K followers). After seeing her face, I actually remember coming across a couple of her TikToks back in 2020-ish.
Also, while looking Maalvika up, I actually found a TikTok from Katie Jgln (embedded right below) where she called out Maalvika for plagiarism back in March 24, 2024. So this situation is not new, and Maalvika has already been called out by Katie.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
In a response to the Substack note above (you can also see embedded right below), Katie linked a TikTok video where Maalvika was claiming that her post is her most well-researched post and she is so proud of it. However, like Katie mentions, all of Maalvika’s talking points are from Katie’s original story.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Maalvika took down her plagiarized post in March 2024, so I cannot compare both, but Katie does provide a few screenshots of Maalvika’s in her call-out TikTok above.
I decided to fact-check what Maalvika said in her TikTok video above to see if what Katie said about Maalvika taking her talking points is true.
Here is a transcript of what Maalvika said in her TikTok video (edited for grammar and coherence):
“Recently, I posted what is maybe my favorite, most well-researched Substack and I’m very proud of it. It’s called Do Algorithms Promote Misogynistic Content and What The Hell Do We Do About It. I’ve cited a lot of literature and it’s all hyperlinked. I thought I could discuss it on here.
Researchers set up TikTok accounts for archetypes of young teenage boys which addressed loneliness, self-improvement, masculinity to name a few- versus the content on their for you page normal inline, with those interests with misogynistic content shown once in a while.
After 48 hours of that for you page, around 56% of the videos became centered around objectification, sexual harassment, and discrediting and blaming women for men’s problems.
Google search algorithm has been found to do this.
It’s so sad and scary that when young men look up terms connected to body image, loneliness, unemployment, they’re directed to incel sites and forums.
When I talk about this, people are like: ‘ok, misogyny has always existed and now we have feminism, so things are better than ever, right?!’
Sure…but at no point in history have humans been shoveled misleading and harmful information for hours and hours and hours a day. Teenagers now spend roughly seven hours a day on their phones and young people are far more susceptible to online extremism than adults.
We need to do more to prevent misogyny from spreading like this in the first place. We need to involve young boys and men around these conversations before they’re encountered with them on the internet.”
I then cross-analyzed what Maalvika said in her TikTok, claiming it to be her research, with Katie’s article. Katie is correct. All of Maalvika’s talking points and statistics are from Katie’s article, except for her point about misogyny and feminism, which was later supported by facts from Katie’s article.
You can say Maalvika might be reading the same research that Katie cited, but she is still using the same points verbatim.
(Later in this post, we will discuss Maalvika’s notes apology and the screenshot she provided because the statistics and research she shared in this TikTok video is not used there.
Also, if you have seen her note apology, she said her post is about US-backed research. Why is she sharing obvious UK-backed research? Can be a coincidence that both the UK and US-backed have identical statistics?)
Maalvika First Response (Kind Of)
Maalvika commented a mini-apology under Substack bittersweet by fifi most-recent post, which had a section about this situation, but Maalvika took her comment down.
While she did delete her comment on fifi’s Substack, this comment-apology is practically the same response she gave to Emily Sundberg for Emily’s *MEGA POPULAR* Substack Feed Me.
Maalvika actually just posted an apology to her Substack notes, which we will fully discuss on in a second.
In her notes apology, Maalvika said that Katie reached out to her in March 2024 and that’s when Maalvika took down the post. Katie did not explicitly mention an exchange between her and Maalvika in her Plagarist post but did mention how she reported Maalvika’s article and profile several times to Substack, and she also blocked Maalvika on Substack after reading it, back in 2024. Katie says she wasn’t tagged on either TikTok or Substack.
Katie just posted to her notes the original TikTok DM she got Maalvika apologizing for copying her work. Again, Katie blocked Maalvika on Substack and did tag Maalvika in the call-out TikTok, which is how Maalvika probably learned of this.
The Apology
Because I am unemployed, I WILL dissect her apology because it is confusing me.
In the third paragraph, Maalvika doubled-down by saying this was an oversight, and she mixed-up her drafts and notes. Also, her post was focused on US-based research, while Katie’s was done with UK-based research. However, in the above-mentioned TikTok DM, Katie asked her how could it be oversight/mix-up, when it is blatantly copied with a few words changed.
Also, like I shared earlier - all of Maalvika’s talking points from her TikTok talking about her March 2024 post, are practically verbatim from Katie’s article. The statistics are also not used in the screenshot that Maalvika shared in her notes apology.
Another thing, in the same paragraph, Maalvika says: “To clarify, in the same piece, I had explicitly mentioned Katie by name (see attached) alongside other Substack writers, researchers, and thinkers whose work I admire and noted the strength of the research she draws from in the UK. If my intent was devious, I wouldn’t have included a hyperlink to her name. Yet, copying and pasting her words from my notes and two piece without attribution was a real error.”
In Maalvika’s notes apology screenshot, of the article in question, she underlined where she mentions Katie. However, commenter Joy Wakefield noted that Maalvika did not properly credit Katie because it should have been hyperlinked and turn into Katie Jgln, not [at]katiejgln. (I am going to include the thread because there were two very important points made regarding this.)
Joy is right - you can’t see what, where, when it’s from. Then again, Katie did have Maalvika blocked so I do not know if that played a role in how the profile link materializes in the post.
Also, Katie confirms my point of Maalvika’s essay discussion TikTok not using any of statistics in her actual post.
[Regardless, the accreditation is poorly done. It is made to seem like she is sharing a person who also happens to write about stuff like this, if you are interested. NOT this writer is the backbone to this entire essay. Proper credit should be within the first few paragraphs and be something like:
This post is based on [at]katiejgln recent article about how social media algorithms are contributing to the rise in misogyny on her Substack the Noösphere. Katie’s article is focused on UK-based research, while I wanted to further discussion by using US-based research.
Then proceed to write your own article, with your own words, and sources.]
The brackets ([]) just mean I am interjecting my professional opinion.
Again, I have not seen Maalvika’s post other than the beginning and the screenshot she provided, but Katie did say that the post blatantly copies hers. However, Maalvika said it was an accident on her part so maybe that is why the credit is poorly done?
Furthering this point, as I was editing this post, more information was dropped by both parties. Katie responded to the screenshot (second slide) of Maalvika’s notes apology saying that the research linked and referenced in the screenshot was published in fall 2024. Maalvika’s post was published spring 2024, over six months before the research she linked was published.
Maalvika responded to this note with her own note stating two very important things: the research linked was published on March 11, 2024, and throughout the year, Pew Research Center will update their articles with new findings. Hence why the article will update the date as well.
This is very common for a lot of content management systems (where articles are hosted). Even if you just go in to add a comma and nothing else, some articles will update the date to that day. However, I do not know much about how PRC’s CMS works lol.
I did some digging on the Wayback Machine and it does look like it the research Maalvika linked was published on March 11, 2024.
As you can see above, Maalvika is correct. I also went ahead and downloaded the report to double-check the dates and it is from March 2024.
Maalvika said she linked a similar article from January 2024 as well, however, both article urls link she posted back to the same article (the one above). Again, like I mentioned, I checked the link with Wayback Machine, there are no instances where this link was created or updated in January 2024. I have a feeling Maalvika linked the wrong article.
With that beings said, the research Maalvika linked has none of the statistics that are found in the screenshot she shared. This research article talks about how teens and parents relationships are impacted by phone and social media usage, NOT specifically teens relationship with phones and social media. You will see more below.
Even so, a commenter pointed out some discrepancies.
I went through each statistic to try to find the source of it. Is it from the March 11, 2025, article link like Maalvika said — or is it from fall 2024, like commenter Zach is claiming above. I have provided screenshots.
(To save you the grief — you can just compare Zach’s screenshots and look at the dates, then compare them to the statistics in Maalvika’s screenshot. However, I went through every paper and compared.)
STATISTIC #1
“According to Pew Research’s latest data from 2024, 46% of American teens say they’re online “almost constantly.””
This statistic was pulled from fall 2023 research (several months before Maalvika published her piece). However, it is not from the study Maalvika posted in her note apology. It is from the one Zach posted.
STATISTIC #2
“90% of teens use YouTube, with 73% visiting daily and 15% describing their use as “almost constant.” For TikTok, it’s 60% usage overall, with 16% using it constantly. Instagram and Snapchat aren’t far behind.”
These statistics were likely pulled from fall 2023 research (several months before Maalvika published her piece). However, nothing is from the study Maalvika linked in her note. It is from the one Zach posted, but the numbers are slightly off*. The 90% of teens use YouTube makes sense. However, the TikTok statistic is off. There might be another study that contains this information that was used but not mentioned.
*Later in this post, I actually find the correct research with the statistics Maalvika wrote about. I am fleshing out any what-ifs and possible coincidences.
STATISTIC #3
“The demographics matter too. About 58% of Hispanic teens and 53% of Black teens say they use the internet almost constantly, compared to 37% of White teens.”
Again, same thing. Statistics are from fall 2023. However, nothing is from the study Maalvika linked in her note. It is from the one Zach posted, but the numbers are slightly off.
REVISITING STATISTICS #2 AND #3 WITH THE RIGHT STUDIES
I went back to look at Zach’s note and double-checked the screenshot shared, and that is when things clicked in my head—I am looking at the wrong studies.
Stay with me here—The one survey picture Zach shared has the exact statistics for the third and fourth paragraphs in Maalvika’s screenshot from her notes apology. That specific survey, with the exact statistics, is from fall 2024, several months after Maalvika posted and took down her story. Katie said this in her note earlier.
I still thought it was important to provide the screenshots above so you can reference and see for yourself.
However, this specific study were in neither Maalvika’s or Zach’s links, but Zach did provide the screenshot (Zach, thank you for your service). But I did find the correct study with the correct statistical information Maalvika had in her apology notes screenshot thing (idk what to call it).
The study is called Teens, Social Media and Technology 2024, and it was published on December 12, 2024. I am also posting the statistics again so it is easier to reference and see for yourself.
“The demographics matter too. About 58% of Hispanic teens and 53% of Black teens say they use the internet almost constantly, compared to 37% of White teens.”
“90% of teens use YouTube, with 73% visiting daily and 15% describing their use as “almost constant.” For TikTok, it’s 60% usage overall, with 16% using it constantly. Instagram and Snapchat aren’t far behind.”
I triple-checked with Wayback Machine to see if it was an updated URL. There is none. It was published in December 2024.
Please give me insight if I am not doing the Wayback Machine right.
Also, if I am missing or using the wrong research, let me know. I feel like I am going crazy corroborating this information.
Final point, in the second-to-last paragraph, Maalvika said: “I'm sorry to anyone else who felt hurt, misled, or disappointed. I sincerely apologize. This was an isolated incident: one I've taken responsibility for and learning from. It will never happen again.”
However, people are saying she has been stealing from others as well.
I saw a comment somewhere saying Maalvika also copied Jessica DeFino in 2020.
However, I have not been able to confirm the comments above because I have not cross-analyzed the information given.
The Aftermath (Kind Of)
As of July 30, 2025, Maalvika has privated her Instagram account and has been allegedly filtering comments on TikTok.
It is apparent that she is trying to keep this controversy from spreading to her other accounts, hence why she also unlinked all her social media accounts on Substack.
And friends- that is the current timeline.
My Thoughts
Anyways, I can’t speak for Katie, but I definitely feel like Maalvika got held accountable to some degree by the public court of Substack.
In Maalvika’s first apology comment, given to Emily Sundberg, it made it seem Maalvika was genuinely remorseful about what happened and confessed to using Katie’s essay word-for-word. She said she will refund anyone who feels cheated, and that the hate is hard for her, which is understandable.
Then in her official notes apology, it seemed like she was backtracking saying things like she did credit her, it’s because I am popular now, you guys don’t know how AI works, etc.
Specifically, in Maalvika’s notes app apology, she wrote: “while I can't speak to the reasons for the timing of a now non-existent post being called into question (over a year later), I understand that with greater visibility for my work comes greater scrutiny, and I accept that.”
Well, I kind of know why—you allegedly took Katie’s work, copied it, condensed it, and then went online and told people it was yours. Last year, you plagiarized someone’s work with no real consequences and with absolutely no mention to your audience; today, you are #1 Substack bestseller. I mean I understand Katie’s anger and frustration, not to mention the horrible precedent it sets for the Substack community.
Also, just to reiterate, this is not meant to be an excuse to dogpile on Maalvika. I don't think I have any emotional connection to the Maalvika to even be like I'm disappointed in her or I'm upset with her. The only thing is we're both Brown girls lol. Also, I think I'm somewhat cynical by the concept of cheaters continuously winning.
Honestly, I think I did this deep-dive because I wanted to give Maalvika the benefit of doubt, since she is a brown girl like me, buuuuut yeah…
While I am here, I saw this criticism in a TikTok comment, which I cannot find anymore. If Katie ever reads this, the very last line of your plagiarist article, you wrote: And if you smell the stink, call it out. This can come off as a racist dogwhistle because Indians (South Asians in general) get stereotyped/harassed as smelling bad, like curry, etc. I did not notice it when I first read the post, and I definitely don’t think it is intentional, but I can see how it can be taken that way since Maalvika is Indian. Please consider changing it.
I don't believe in cancel culture. It's not a real thing. I think Maalvika will be fine, and I mean she's only 25. So, I think the criticism is fine and won’t ruin her life. It will be hard to rebuild credibility among her online peers, but then again, it’s the internet and people will eventually forget.
I don’t hate her and think she has genuinely good discussion topics centered around culture, womanhood, beauty, and more (I don’t read her writing, just seen a few of her TikToks).
The PR person in me believes this would not have happened if she actually came clean to everyone back in 2024, on Substack specifically, about what happened, which actually reminds me of two old blogging stories.
So I started my original beauty blog back in middle school, around age 13. At the time it was on Blogger, also known as Blogspot. It was the same concept as social media, you would have like followers, who would subscribe to you, and they get notified of your new posts.
I remember finding another beauty blogger, she was around my age, and she focused primarily on Asian beauty. I think she was Asian American like me but I can't remember.
Her blog had a lot more followers and comments than mine — like way more. Obviously, I am like a preteen, so comparison obviously kicked in. Granted, even as an adult, comparison still kicks in, but I digress.
And I remember I visited her blog one day and noticed she wrote a post about how she plagiarized someone. She said she literally just copied and pasted the entire post, and just like uploaded it to her blog. She took it down (idk if she got caught) but she's remorseful about it. The comments were actually really nice because they were more inline of saying while plagiarizing is not okay but I appreciate how you came clean about it to your audience and took it down.
Another story: One day my friend messaged me and she was like hey, look at this, I think someone is copying you. I was like no way.
I clicked on the link and the blog was basically mine. The same name and my plagiarist posted several of my blog posts, even photos. She had also plagiarized several other people's blog posts too. I don't think I did anything about it because I was so young and I was low-key scared to stick up for myself. I think, as well, I didn't have enough self-esteem and confidence in my writing to like be like why are you stealing my work.
All that to say, I guess I've seen two sides of the coin regarding this situation.
Again, I don't know Maalvika’s thought process on this because she is very popular so she's bound to be found out, right? Makes me think she had the intelligence/foresight so this must be an egregious oversight. That's kind of how my brain is rationalizing it.
That being said, I think the way she's handling and also responding to this is kind of strange, and also kind of sloppy (?) Even when I was fact-checking information, I was shocked with how things weren't lining up. It's so different from the way she presents herself online and her writing.
However, I do agree with Virgo Like Beyoncé (LOOOOVE THAT NAME) comment in the TikTok thread I posted above. When people get away with something, they become bold and start pushing the envelope a little bit more and more, until eventually it catches up to them. As you can see from the other TikTok comments, this allegedly isn't her first time. So I can see how stealing a 15-second TikTok — and getting away with it — could snowball into straight up plagiarizing full articles on Substack.
Also, with the element of her taking down the post back in March of 2024, and the exchange between the two of them, makes me think they squared it away at that time. However, it seems like they have not, hence why this entire situation.
I feel like what would really solidify my opinion about this entire situation is if I saw Maalvika’s original plagiarized post in its entirety, and also, the entire TikTok DM exchange between Katie and Maalvika from March 2024. But then again, do I even need to see it?
Jaz Melody, someone who Maalvika allegedly plagiarized as well, also responded to a controversy in a TikTok below with very good point regarding the creative process and time pressure.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Last thought but the title “Mama, There Is A Plagiarist Behind You” is absolutely frying me. Like ??? Does that mean something else, or like is that not the funniest title you have seen lmaooooo
Conclusion
Going forward, I don't know what's going to happen. I'm talking about this entire situation as an observer, not someone who's trying to see herself in either person.
I also think people are angry at Maalvika, but a lot of their anger is also towards Substack for not doing anything about this when Katie originally reported her.
I would love to see an ai/plagiarism committee at Substack to handle situations like this. What that looks like can be as far as removing their right to put their content behind the paywall, suspending them all together from the site, can also be paying back their subscribers, etc. I don't know if these are too extreme, but those are just a few of my ideas.
However, like I said earlier, majority of Maalvika's audience come from external platforms like Instagram and TikTok, which probably makes Substack very happy lol.
I know that she is a PhD student at an elite university in the United States, and people are reporting or have reported her to her program. I understand that as a PhD student plagiarizing someone's work is a huge violation of ethics, and can be a reason for suspension or expulsion. I'm not going to report her. I think I've already done enough damage. But I'm not going to blame Katie or other academics for doing it.
Do I think she's not being as truthful as she says she is? Yes, especially based on the compiled evidence.
Do I think she's a fake AI character? No, she is 100% real LMAO.
Do I think all her other stories are AI or were plagiarized? Honestly, no.
Do I think she has plagiarized or has taken content ideas other than this story? Yes.
Unfortunately, I'm not someone who's able to pick up on AI immediately so there is a chance I will fall for it (RIP). Today, I saw an AI Substack note. First of all, it was the dumbest story ever but it still had like 20,000 likes (?)
Anyways, Katie, again, if you are reading this, I am sorry this happened and nobody did anything about it the first time. It sucks to have your work stolen so blatantly and then be gaslit into thinking you are crazy when it was so deliberate.
Okay, I'm done talking.
This story is like 5,500 words so I'm wrapping it up here.
I’ll leave you with a question from fifi from her post about this situation.
If you are confused about anything, or you feel I made a mistake in this piece, leave a comment below.
Goodbye ⋆.˚ ᡣ𐭩 .𖥔˚
Corrections and clarifications from August 2, 2025 (nothing major):
Back-edited the story for grammar, syntax, and clarity
I updated and clarified the passage in the parenthesis in the One Year Ago (Kind Of) section to ask about if Maalvika is using US-backed or UK-backed research in her original TikTok
Changed the word “screen-grab” to “screenshot” for consistency
Accidentally wrote 2014 instead of 2024 in the Maalvika’s First Response (Kind Of) section
Added a clarification about why I am going through each hyperlinked study under STATISTICS #2 in The Apology section
Added a header in The Apology section to clarify revisiting the two latter statistics with the proper studies. I also included the “third paragraph” when referencing what statistics from Maalvika's screenshot are in the fall 2024 study.
Also, for clarification, I took and marked the study screenshots myself
In the REVISITING STATISTICS #2 AND #3 WITH THE RIGHT STUDIES section, I mislabeled one of studies captions as being from commenter Zach, when it was from me
The Substack community has such a short attention span. It’s been like two days and everyone is like yeah let’s move on and accept the fact that this happened. Maalvika has paywalled her audience to shield them from fallout and continues to grow and is probably just waiting for this to blow over before she resumes her shit. Meanwhile any writer who is cares about their work feels threatened that this platform won’t do shit. Mustard just bid his farewell to the platform. It’s so sad. How do we as a community just take this sitting down. She’s still out there and more like her are on their way. It’s so frustrating. She could write a plagiarized article behind that paywall word-for-word right now and no one would know.
haha “mama a (blank) behind you” is a meme format based on a TikTok a while back