Why not both? "Protesters" are what? 1-2% of the general pop? Most of them look to be college aged, definitely have well off parents and aren't poor (or they're going to have a crash once debt collector comes) because who the fck can afford that many tats on top of a GRS? Young lazy fucks with nothing better to do than protest.
Makes me look differently at Tiannamen Square, really, because it's like this across history, it's always fking students that have shitfits and demand revolutions. And maybe it's not a completely bad idea to just run them over because even if communists gave up china to students and their democracy in 50 years democracy would be surrendering to a mob of angry commie students.
Internet on the other hand made people who thought they were alone communities where they learned there's enough of them to cause a stir. One gay dude in some butt fuck nowhere village is going to get his shit kicked in if he's going to start making demands on the village but once there's enough of them to organize a protest they can rattle entire society because media will act like a megaphone.
Same as there not really being too many fursuit wearing weirdos before internet made some people realize they can make money by selling fursuits because there is a demo for it.
Really, once you can organize enough people to fill a street you have enough to cause a stir, which will usually attract more. So the group that's protesting is 1% of the population and everyone thinks that means they don't matter? Do the math on the sheer number of people 1% is in America, it's a population of a big city or a tiny country.