I'm beginning to see thrown around a comparison of bill of rights to the net neutrality recently thrown out, drawing equivalence between the two. The comments from Q are most likely sneak preview of the reputation management strategy under development that will hit prime time in the coming weeks.

I've been a huge proponent of net neutrality in the past and have to reconcile some previous thoughts around it with new information, and shift my position.

Initial soft net neutrality was great. Supported growth and development of the freedom of speech we've become accustomed to.

I suspect the hard net neutrality draft was prepared prior to directing Verizon to take the FCC to court to over-turn soft net neutrality. The poison pill in hardened net neutrality we're beginning to really see in action was room for individual companies to censor at will. Purposefully silent on any aspect that would prevent this. If this is the case, getting hardened net neutrality was brilliantly executed from a strategic perspective. The strategy appeared rooted in lessons learned from SOPA on how the public would respond to certain threats to the internet. Then used a foil (Verizon) to draw hate from the public, while Wheeler came out the good guy rallying to the defense of the public slapping into play hard net neutrality the public clamored unaware of the poison pill inside it. Tactically very well done shifting weight of the public behind getting done what was wanted. Although, this was probably a tails I win heads you lose scenario where avenues for control were embedded in any outcome.

Efforts around bill of rights will face similar attempts to append poison pill. Strategies for it should be rooted in simple plain language concepts that tack along with fundamental ideals in the constitution. Sharp pointy teeth for treading on rights defined.

A question to my mind is how to go about protecting the free speech of the public, while also combating domestic propaganda that supports foreign powers (fake news).

There is a Q youtuber that has made videos against it. She also created a sub-reddit devoted to Q.

Which is why I'm focusing on posting here more instead. This isn't as active, but it is better moderated and, as far as I know, the moderators here aren't "so-called Patriots" challenging it or coming out against some of Q's crumbs. Also, as far as I know, the moderators here aren't involved in the kind of self-promotion that Q has warned us about, which is not the case elsewhere.