The aim of protest is to misrepresent the proportion of people holding a given opinion by being more conspicuous than those not holding that view.

You might argue, in response, that protest is less about measuring opinion than “signaling intensity.” Ten thousand mildly supportive people and five hundred highly motivated people are not equivalent in political terms, you might say. The latter will donate, organize, vote in primaries, and make life difficult for officials. Protest is a way of saying, “we care enough to incur cost.” That’s information, says the organizer.

Then maybe you’ve made my point. In a democracy – democratic republic, more correctly – someone in that highly motivated group should still cast but one vote.

A protest and its media coverage create the impression of a groundswell that isn’t there. And there’s a continuity between “signaling intensity” and “nudging conformity.” Social visibility tells folk seeking peer approval “this is the crowd to be part of.”

If a protest makes a stance feel socially legible and non-isolating, it lowers the cost of adopting it. Deep-pocket funding can tilt who gets organized and which messages are polished. It can lower barriers for certain groups, provide stipends for organizers, and shape the tone of events. That can make a movement look more coherent or widespread than it would be if people had to self-organize, like they did in 1967.

Media bias, including social media hosted by big concerns like Facebook, X and Google, is an obvious source of concern. Case in point: Google’s apparent attempt to coerce me right here. I intended to call this essay “Democrats Against Democracy.” So I asked Google Gemini to make me an image of an angry man holding a sign saying “Democrats against democracy.”

It refused. I asked two more times, using different language. It instead built me an image of a man holding a sign reading “Democrats against corruption.” So I then asked for an angry man with “Republicans against democracy.” Thank you.

I cover a wide variety of topics on this blog. From my WordPress stats, I can conclude that textual analysis of the Gospel of Mark and stress analysis of concrete expansion bolts are hotter topics than politics. I can’t know for sure whether Google suppresses my political posts, but it seems curious that Mark and concrete bolts each got 40 times as many views as my pieces criticizing covid response. 40 times.

Elections confer authority, they shouldn’t suspend dissent. Protest can be a normal part of democratic feedback when it tries to change minds or set agendas. It can be clearly anti-democratic when it aims to nullify lawful outcomes or intimidate participation. Help me draw the line?

Watch my short video spoof about Careers in the Protest Economy on YouTube. YouTube is owned by Google. This video got one fiftieth as many views as the one I made about a particular marble bust of emperor Nero a day later. Timely topic, Nero.