> 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.

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.

> 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”.

> 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.

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.

> The counter argument to that is in the age of the social media there is no need to take to the streets to show that there is dissent.

you can find dissent to anything and everything at any time on the internet. Dissent exists always. Dissent that causes people to take the streets and risk being murdered, gassed, beaten, arrested, or even just tracked using facial recognition and fake cell phone towers, that's something else entirely.

> Motivating other people to take a stand -- I do not think this is true either.

People in this discussion have already stated that protests have caused them to reevaluate their position on things protesters were demonstrating against.

> Change comes from the ballot box.

If that were true there'd never have been any change in countries that aren't democracies or where voting was a complete sham only to give the appearance of one. Fairly elected or otherwise, politicians can ignore mean facebook posts. They can't as easily ignore thousands of people protesting outside of their home or office.

Where democracy exists at all, protests can change people's minds about their situation, especially when those protests demonstrate and expose horrific abuses by the state. Even if I didn't support whatever was being protested, if I witness things that shouldn't happen in my country and the current administration defends those things and/or threatens worse, I'm going to reconsider my support the current administration and I won't need 7+ months to do it

A reply on social media is taking a stand?

It seems more of a fetid cesspit. It promotes anger, division and controversy rather than shared ideas, cohesive action and positive social change. I think I need an example of the good social media can do for society and collective action.

Protests themselves probably aren't good at convincing people, but they can bring awareness to an issue. They can persuade politicians they need to take action on an issue.

Protests aren't trying to reach the people who've already decided they're wrong. They're trying to reach the unpersuaded masses who don't currently agree or disagree.

Obviously this requires the protesters to make a bit of a judgment call. Do I think the typical person leans so strongly towards my side that they'll take it when I force the issue, even if I annoy them? Sometimes the answer is no, and I've definitely seen people do counterproductive protests that way. But sometimes the answer is yes.

> You're describing how protests energize people who already agree. I'm asking how they persuade people who don't.

That's not the intent.

The No Kings protests were big enough to be all over social media as well as mainstream media. Members of the administration and Congressional Republicans tried to characterize it as far leftist radicals. The president made a disgusting AI video dumping on the protestors. So it was big enough to get under their skin.

Protests are one way We the People remind the government who they're supposed to be representing. Who has the real power in a democracy.