To be more precise, one aspect of what I'm describing relates to the mass production of protest, the formation of an inorganic protest "complex". Protest is popularly considered a spontaneous, organic outpouring of popular sentiment, something that reflects the mass will of a people suppressed by some hostile power. Yet increasingly protest is being used by hostile forces in a pre-meditated, engineered, inorganic way while maintaining the appearance and narrative of the "traditional" conception of protest, which it resembles less and less.
This is just one example of the general case of a metric ceasing to be useful once it is recognize as a metric. Once we begin explicitly trying to target some metric, some behavior, some form, we effectively become liars as the form we take no longer speaks to some deeper truth as it was originally meant to.
It is sometime this, but it is also popularly known as an organized struggle against an oppressive power. Examples being, Ghandi's independence movement in India, the suffrage movements for the right of women to vote, and the civil rights movements in the 60s. These were all highly organized, premeditated and engineered to achieve specific objectives.
> increasingly protest is being used by hostile forces
Here you'd have to define 'hostile forces', because it sounds like you are defining it as 'anyone who disagrees with the current power structure', which would be all protesters because that what protests are.
Isn’t this just a case of “semantic drift”?