[qdog]

IMHO, the value of the protest is to demonstrate a portion of the electorate does not agree with whatever they are protesting. There are a lot of people in a bubble that seem to think the majority always views things exactly the same as they do. Maybe you will always default do doubling down on the status quo, but some people will eventually inquire as to why someone is willing to inconvenience themselves to protest. Once someone starts to be curious about other people's motivations and reasoning, it often does impact their own opinions, for good or bad.

[yesco]

Assuming critics are just reflexively resistant is a convenient way to avoid asking whether the criticism has merit. "They'd get it if they were more curious" is unfalsifiable.

Everyone already knows dissent exists. Polls, social media, elections make that clear. The question is whether street protests add anything to that awareness, and whether the way they're conducted generates curiosity or just irritation. For a lot of people it's the latter, and waving that off doesn't make the problem disappear.

[johnny22]

> Assuming critics are just reflexively resistant is a convenient way to avoid asking whether the criticism has merit. "They'd get it if they were more curious" is unfalsifiable.

I don't know if it can be proven or whatever, but I do know it has changed me.

There have been many events where I thought "hey, why is everybody whining about X thing?". "things are fine the way they are". Until I read more about it and changed my mind.

If it was purely online, I wouldn't take it so seriously.

So whether it can proven empirically or not, I know it changed me.

[TheAceOfHearts]

I think protests are good since it requires you to go outside and interact with other people, it requires a higher level of commitment than the slacktivism of the 2010s that was so prominent in online spaces. Polls are gamed all the time and social media is dominated by bots, but you cannot fake a large crowd in a protest. If a protest is large enough it creates a force that cannot be easily ignored.

[yesco]

Agreed on the slacktivism point. Physical presence means something that bots and polls can't fake. My issue isn't with protesting itself, it's that the assumed impact often seems out of proportion with what's actually being achieved. A crowd showing up doesn't automatically translate to minds changed or policy moved. And crowd sizes can be just as ambiguous as poll numbers when it comes to representing broader sentiment. If the tactics alienate more people than they persuade, visibility alone isn't doing much.

[jibal]

What assumed impact?

> A crowd showing up doesn't automatically translate to minds changed or policy moved.

Strawman much?

> If the tactics alienate more people than they persuade, visibility alone isn't doing much.

What tactics? What evidence is there that people are being alienated by the peaceful protests, rather than by the murders and other violence and lying of administration officials?

[komali2]

Yes, protests are fertile recruitment grounds. I have inducted many a liberal into leftist thinking after they experience the shocking violence the State is willing to deploy against them for executing what they thought was a guaranteed right.

[0ckpuppet]

don't forget the shocking violence leftist have inflicted in autonomous zones, riots, not to mention arson, assault, and in a couple cases, murder. 70 million votes said no and accepted the baggage that came with that no vote.

[komali2]

Luckily there's no evidence to support your claims.

[techcode]

Of course you can fake a small/large crowd in a protest.

From the top of my head I can think of news reporting both "few (tens of) thousands" vs "hundreds of thousands" (different news reporting different numbers/estimates/etc) in 2025 protests in Serbia/Belgrade, as well as those comparisons of Obama vs Trump inauguration news/photos.

Meanwhile to you as an individual there on the spot - both crowds of say 50K-100K and 1M+ look basically the same = "huge amounts of people in every direction that you look".

[TheAceOfHearts]

Counting large crowds is hard, but the tools continue to improve: we have increasingly advanced drone photography and access to better AI tools to generate more reliable estimates.

If crowd sizes become a significant point of contention it'll become increasingly commonplace for multiple parties to take lots of aerial video and photos that serve as independent verification. You could probably get a pretty accurate estimate of how many people show up to an event by sending drones to take photos every 15 minutes.

In any case, I think the problem you highlight is more focused towards the upper-end, while I was thinking about the lower end of the spectrum. Where some people might be very vocal online, but they're unable to gather more than a dozen or two people for any given protest. If a protest is gathering an unknown number of people that ranges between 100k and 1 million that sounds like a really good problem to have.

Your criticism of inconsistent people estimates are valid, I'm not sure if newspapers have published the set of tools and criteria that they use when generating these estimates, so that's an area where it would be great to see increased transparency.

[techcode]

While 100K itself is indeed impressive - the order of magnitude difference between 100K and 1M makes a lot of room for interpretations, rationalizations, spins ...etc.

The "publishing the set of tools and criteria used to generate estimates" is happening, and so far it seems that usually doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because of course those sources/news that report wildly wrong (be it larger or smaller numbers) are usually (not always, but very commonly) controlled by the governments.

So despite students that organized the biggest protests in Belgrade giving their estimates (based on combo of RSVP and how many people accommodated people from other cities). And those being close to independant research (using drone footage, VR/AR crowd simulations, AI) with loads of posts/videos providing detailed explanations ...

Most "ordinary people" saw (and keep seeing) just the "official version".

[jibal]

> Assuming critics are just reflexively resistant

This is not an accurate or thoughtful characterization of what you're responding to; it's not even in the same ballpark.

> is a convenient way to avoid asking whether the criticism has merit.

Pure projection.

[lazyasciiart]

> Everyone already knows dissent exists. Polls, social media, elections make that clear.

No, they really don’t. Have you never heard someone say that they have never met anyone who is X so it can’t be that popular? My own sister thought 2000 was going to be a landslide for Gore because she “hadn’t met anyone who was going to vote for Bush”.

[daveguy]

Exactly. Piercing the bubble is the most important purpose of peacefully protesting in a day of internet silos and media monopolies.

[komali2]

Don't underestimate the importance of the other reason protests are effective: as a politician, it's very, very scary to look out your window and see thousands of people that are mad enough at you to forgoe their day and instead come yell at you about it. It tends to make them a bit more amenable unless they have enough military power to guaranteed squash mass resistance (which is the case for any American politician).

[newAccount2025]

This, and for politicians who actually agree without fear, it creates credibility, my constituents are up in arms about this and I will be supported if I champion it.