@dFrog , this is a really great idea! Unfortunately, the way you've presented it is also an unsourced discussion post, which belongs in v/pizzagatewhatever . I have to remove it per Rule 4.

I am hoping you can review the submission guidelines for v/pizzagate and repost this here on v/pizzagate in a way the meets research post standards. I.e. Title that states a thesis, supported by linked sources supporting the thesis and how it is relevant to the pizzagate investigation. Your thesis could be something like -- We need an Offensive against Fake News to fight MSM repression of the Pizzagate Investigation. Then you can link to a Voat post demonstrating fake news became a thing right as pizzagate was breaking in November (the timeline of pizzagate censorship is a good resource) and talk about the effect this censorship has had on investigators. You could also provide a link to an effective example of a push-back video (excerpt of Ben Swann? Or maybe Joe Rogan?) that demonstrates how it can restore credibility. Then describe the template you are looking for. That should satisfy Rules 1 and 2.

Meanwhile, you can repost this as is in v/askpizzagate or v/pizzagatememes , or even v/pizzagatewhatever . You can also link to the post in the comment section of any v/pizzagate post asking for thoughts.

I have to remove this per Rule 4.

[Title of Article | Date of Publication] - [Media Figurehead | Media Outlet | Media Owner/Nationality] Date of Incident and or original publication is the most important, the minimal required to post IMHO. Who has a dog in the fight, AKA media owner ID, should be a law.