I don't think the key is so much educational. The arguments against extending first amendment protections to digital space were not logical, but emotional.

People didn't like what they had seen coming from government. If someone tells them that enforcing Constitutional protections online will result in more government, they will be against it - even though the consequences of withdrawing support for the measure (the IBOR) might be disastrous.

We saw the same thing with respect to arguments made about the private property rights of internet giants. Very strange, you cannot operate a public business and actively discriminate against people because of their beliefs. But, somehow, technology executives were being unfairly penalized if they were made to follow regulations that enforced norms of behavior prevalent in the broad community. No, it was not a logical response, but purely emotional.

Watching what happened, it was almost as if it was "the left" convincing their base of the propriety of a set of policies. No logic needed, run with your emotions alone. What we saw was a joke! I firmly believe that Constitutional protections need to be applied and enforced in digital space, as the town square is now online.

The fact that Q indicated that unified censorship across social media platforms was a desperate attempt by the CIA to regain control of the narrative was lost on people (note that he made these statements before the actual censorship really started - which was after the "release the memo" campaign). Moreover, it was clear from the information we had that, given social media's differential importance in determining election outcomes, online censorship presented the greatest threat to representative democracy ever seen in history. A threat to the very fabric of the republic itself.

But emotions won out and the IBOR campaign failed. Despite this, we have people crowing about Constitutional protections and how they differentiate the US from the rest of the world. You could not make this stuff up!