And to quote an especially important part about one of the Author's views from that Wikipedia article:
(emphasis added)
Subsequently, Chenoweth has noticed that both nonviolent and armed resistance have been decreasing in efficacy since 2010, concluding that this is the result of authoritarian regimes learning from history, coordinating with one another, and training their armies and police to discourage defections within their ranks. Consequently, Chenoweth has advised that civil resistance movements take these changes into account and alter their tactics accordingly.
To quote even more from this publication, also by one of the authors. (emphasis also added)
The 3.5% participation metric may be useful as a rule of thumb in most cases; however, other factors—momentum, organization, strategic leadership, and sustainability—are likely as important as large-scale participation in achieving movement success and are often precursors to achieving 3.5% participation.
New research suggests that one nonviolent movement, Bahrain in 2011-2014, appears to have decisively failed despite achieving over 6% popular participation at its peak. This suggests that there has been at least one exception to the 3.5% rule, and that the rule is a tendency, rather than a law.
Large peak participation size is associated with movement success. However, most mass nonviolent movements that have succeeded have done so even without achieving 3.5% popular participation.
The key point is this:
The 3.5% figure is a descriptive statistic based on a sample of historical movements. It is not necessarily a prescriptive one, and no one can see the future. Trying to achieve the threshold without building a broader public constituency does not guarantee success in the future.
The very people who publicized this theory in the first place have been repeatedly, publicly trying to clarify that this is descriptive, not prescriptive, yet if you ran with the wording of 50501 and other related movements, you'd think that 3.5% is a magical number that if you pass, the administration instantly backs down. (source: 50501 - Hands Off protest statement: "History shows that when just 3.5% of the population engages in sustained peaceful resistance – transformative change is inevitable.", emphasis added ofc)
If there's any one group of people in our society I'd support having always-on cameras, (like Larry Ellison, soon to be part owner of TikTok claims all people should have) it would be law enforcement agents.
You do not get to wield that much power over people without personal sacrifice.
"It's a violation of my privacy!"- you're on the job and have the power to ruin or even end someone's life. Deal with it. Privacy for the governed, not for the wielders of government power.