You assume that I assume that you disagree with me.

Well, I am making a counterpoint to your comments about people having nothing better to do and not having a common goal as a collective. This woman achieved something extremely worthwhile, and she probably wasn’t working in isolation. She brought attention to an absurd ban on free speech, and by calling the government’s bluff on it, helped to reduce the chilling effect on dissent that such restrictions are intended to create. It takes courage, but the most effective way to oppose an unjust law is to break that law, openly and with as much publicity as possible. It draws attention to what is wrong in a way that an open chat simply fails to do. And how open can that chat be anyway? You say you have free speech, but when it gets you arrested with the threat of serious jail time, your freedom of speech is on very thin ice.

I’m not opposed to verbal persuasion, but it has limitations. Sure you might be able to convince one person of something in a face to face conversation. But that’s small fry compared to the influence of internet forums, which have become overrun with bots, paid shills, foreign interference, partisan moderators and hidden algorithms designed to maximize engagement and distort your worldview.

Sure you can try to change people’s minds and/or maintain a balanced worldview in that arena. But any large scale forum for talk tends to create delusion, division and outrage, by design. It keeps dissent in a form that is contained, monitored and manipulated. Keep talking by all means, but people like this woman are doing more to improve the world than mere talk ever could.