This post on The ZMan blog made me wonder.
Look, in prior times, you would hear more about a growing trend, and reasonably decide that there was, in fact, an increase in the numbers of people interested in that trend.
How many people listened to the music? Easily ascertained by the audience numbers on the radio.
How many people supported a particular, formerly fringe movement? You could see the crowds, and look at poll number, and your answer would be obvious.
Did everyone agree with a particular POV? Donations, bumper stickers, and ubiquity of the message would provide the feedback.
Not so today. Too many people are getting an erroneous message - a DELIBERATLY erroneous message - using those old metrics.
Audience participation? Easily managed with the judicious use of bots. This is why you really can’t tell just how well the message is getting out.
Crowds, poll numbers - both are easily twisted. Crowds are often filled with Feds, paid-for participants, flown-in or bussed-in supporters. In a small city or more remote location, easy to manage. Conversely, a small crowd may not be indicative of lack of support, but due to opponents grabbing online tickets, and freezing true supporters out.
Donations can, and have, been jiggered to accept them from foreign donors, phony names, and out-of-state mega-money backers. If you don’t want an opponent to be able to get their hands on donations, just interfere with their ability to use crowdsourcing apps, keep a relationship with a bank, or block or throttle their website.
The ubiquity of messaging can be managed by use of open or stealth bans, restriction of reach on old-time media, ‘time-outs’ to those trying to reach other supporters on social media, and vandalism and/or personal violence to those displaying that message, whether on public property or their own (home, car, clothing). If they persist, declare them an UNperson, throw lawsuits at them, sic the local prosecutors on them, and, if necessary, bring down the regulatory forces on them (IRS, EPA, ATFE, credentialing boards, local business and zoning inspectors, et al). All of this HAS been done to those daring to publicly dissent.
So, the idea that your side is growing/shrinking, and that you can tell by any previously known metric. Which makes it hard to see whether or not we are succeeding.
I submit that the only true means of determining support is local. When you discuss issues (please, low-key, and use the initial interactions as a way of sounding the people out), ask some basic questions, and determine:
Is this an active, or passive, supporter of the side they claim? Just how solid is their support? Don’t be led, or lead others, into open revolt. Just ascertain if they are ready for the next, gentle step (willing to hear more, open to agreement with relatively mild issues, actually watches a video on a topic - not firebrand, not revolutionary - just simple. For example, is city government spending the money they get in taxes in appropriate ways? Would they be willing to sign a petition to fill potholes in their neighborhood? Would they be willing to attend a meeting to organize a neighborhood watch (not armed, just informational and cooperating with the local authorities)? Can they be counted on for time spent in local efforts - canned food drive, neighborhood oversight of Halloween activities, cleanup of yards. You’re just trying to find out if the person will extend themselves a teeny bit when requested. If they won’t, I wouldn’t count on them to be there at the barricades.
It’s going to be ALL about the local action. Build that network of dependable neighbors - now.