Create your own web resources. A google ‘collection‘or ‘group’, Facebook page, tumblr account, blog, anywhere that you can post relevant content as part of a diversified network. Whenever you see good content share it to your collection/group/site.
Become a wikipedia contributor and do little things until you have a track record and then start to combat the collective anti-freedom ideological biases.
Multiple websites are better than single websites. A single high traffic site can be hacked or put under legal pressure after being described as ‘hate speech’. Even polite discussion can be claimed as ‘hate speech’ because, unlike its legal definition, whatever someone hates becomes ‘hate speech’.
Twitter is vulnerable to social pressure. Persons who are hated are sometimes blocked or ‘unverified’. Therefore multiple twitter users each with an account are better than single accounts.
Facebook, is king, but has been reported as politically correct.
Youtube has a complaints system which leads to accounts being suspended, videos being deleted, and if enough repeated ‘offences’ limitations put on uploads or complete banning.
Therefore multiple channels run by different users who can ‘mirror’ (copy uploads) are better than one highly concentrated channel.
If you have important content anywhere, get someone to mirror it.
Posting messages to various comments sections spreads information to persons who otherwise may never see the subject.
Copy the following comment & link in your computer clipboard so you can post this…
Everyone should join a group to help push back. You would be welcome at mine https://plus.google.com/communities/101210510523447493914
…into any comment that you leave.
(Please be polite because sites delete or ban hate speech & hate speech is anything someone else hates.)
AVOID HATE SPEECH
But, remember ‘hate speech’ is speech that the other side hates. Polite disagreement will be described as hate speech if it annoys the other side enough, especially if it sways public opinion against them. They will find some way to accuse it of being ‘hate speech’
(Remember the testimony in the Crown vs Gregory Allan Elliott case on the subject of a friendly helpful email, the main witness for the prosecution said of it: “I could detect the underlying seething anger”)