Sign into an existing account

This is gonna be kind of a long post (for voat anyway). Bear with it.

"that we should make those in charge double down rather than be able to pull back without losing face?"

Thats only part of what is being suggested. The idea is that the state always pushes the limit of public outrage without provoking a large scale response. So if you know when the public has hit it's limit, and you put the regime in a no-win position where it has to double down anyway (or lose face, i.e. be de-legitimized), then eventually the state is going to double down at the wrong time and end up with a huge backlash.

And this simple idea can be continuously used every time the regime manufactures a crisis. The backlash is the great risk the regime worries about, because any sufficient backlash can be self-sustaining and promote copycat movements.
A backlash doesn't even have to be big, to be effective, as long as the event that provoked it is signficant enough.
For example

1. The FBI raid on trump's property was sufficient to cause a backlash, albeit violent (something that should be discouraged)

2. FBI and DNC interference in parent protests over school groomers. Each time the junta interfered, it fueled further protests.

Notice also how the media gave life to these movements, by selectively choosing to ignore or run the stories. Some of these backlashes happened because the media, individual outlets and journalists, wanted 'the scoop' and clicks and views, even though their whole job is essentially to be political operatives and influencers. They knew better but they were baited by public attention. This can be exploited and should.

Also notice the interplay between social media influencers (mid-tier, say 5k users on twitter, 50k on youtube, etc) in the alt-media sphere and the DC junta's establishment media. If they have trouble suppressing it at this middle supporting layer, what I've seen is the media will do two things

1. say "fuck it, why pass up the views if it is not going to be suppressed?"

2. run interference and damage control

Those two steps are where you want the real damaging stories to be, because this amounts to system dysregulation of the censorship mechanism.

I know this model works because a few years back I had three separate social media accounts totalling just under 30k followers, and we pushed a lot of ideas and thinking on the right and influenced more than a few real world events as a result. Campaigns were often timed at emotional peaks, during news events, to maximize the unpredictability of the public response.

An account with 30-50k followers can influence, and get messages repeated, by accounts with 1m+ followers.

Social media is a political weapon, not a discussion platform.

So this is just one example of pushing the envelope but it can really be anything.

Bringing 50 people to a protest thats happening already, right at the time the media shows up, can be the difference between an official stepping down or not.

Flyering for a boycott in the neighborhood of some executives? Done right as a CEO is answering questions before congress or the media, can make that executive think they've pissed someone off in congress (it happens. and activism is often a front for sending a message between rival economic/political entities). Suddenly, instead of being "under questioning" they're now "embattled" and it turns into a potential scandal.

And then you get to go to others down the line and use those events above, and say "look this is our organization. if you don't endorse us/do what we say/meet us in the middle, the same things can happen to you."