So back in the late nineties, Act Up faced a similar kind of question with respect to pharmaceutical executives. Effective treatment for HIV had come out, finally. People in even advanced stages of illness from AIDS could often start treatment and find their health restored to fairly good levels. Some of us called it the Lazarus Effect.

The problem was that treatment was often so expensive it was inaccessible to people who needed it the most. Act Up decided to take the fight to the pharmaceuticals for lower prices, sometimes right to the front lawns of certain executives — in order to let their neighbors know they were the people refusing to lower the price of life-saving drugs.

The thinking was that peer pressure would be effective.

Act Up took heat for that, many people saying private lives ought to be off limits in public-policy debate. But Act Up was primarily made up of people whose lives were literally at stake, so those arguments didn’t find a lot of resonance within the group.

The tactics continued for a bit as negotiations continued for making treatment accessible to everyone who needed it. If there was any serious blowback to the tactics, I’m not aware of it. I’m also not aware of whether or not the tactics made any real difference. I’m not sure anyone knows with certainty.

But one thing we had powerfully on our side was public support. Even people who disagreed with the privacy-invading tactics supported the goal of reducing prices significantly. Little vocal or organized opposition existed in favor of the pharmaceuticals. So when we protested, even outrageously, we were harnessing empathy that already existed. Even so, we did take a lot of shit.

I don’t know if any of this is helpful, but I do see some parallels and thought I should bring them up.