[JumpCrisscross]

> means either an ideological alignment with the censorship

Yes. I’m saying I would be ideologically aligned with censoring disruptive protest at a conference. The fact that they didn’t do that is why this is getting attention and sympathy.

> The former audience will never be persuaded

Literally me. I’m being persuaded.

> while its useful to create a sense of martyrdom

Usually only within the group. Exhibit A is all the employee protests at tech companies. Entirely useless and generally unsympathetic to anyone not already in the choir.

> "We are protesting your abandonment of scientific principles" is both what they were doing and should be doing

Sure. Not at the conference. (Like, I’m sure being ejected for traditionally protesting would rank well on BlueSky and sympathetic parts of X. But it wouldn’t be on HN. And I wouldn’t have bothered reading their article if I figure I already know what will be in it.)

[iandanforth]

Ah, ok. There's a whole body of literature here that I think divides our opinions. I would recommend "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (Columbia Studies in Terrorism and Irregular Warfare)" to start. The history of effective change in the face of organizations acting in bad faith may not be what you think it is.

[JumpCrisscross]

Hasn’t the author of that study called out falling success rates for those tactics in recent years? (The N% rule researcher.)