Your answer is based on the assumption that numbers (of people) matter. However, it is the decisions of some very few people (compared to the overall population) that has orders of magnitude higher influence compared to the decisions of everybody else, so making the rest "aware" of whatever issue has next to zero influence.

That is simply the outcome of human society's organization for scalability and nothing nefarious.

An equivalent in the brain is that even thousands of synaptic connections to a neuron a few matter orders of magnitude more than all others, a handful of those can together trigger an action potential but if they don't contribute a graded potential it takes hundreds or even thousands of the others. In addition, the (much less numerous) inhibitory neurons have far greater weight than the excitatory ones, similarly in a human network key players have a much easier time blocking something than getting something to be done. In a network some nodes matter much more than others. You are better off identifying who actually matters instead of yelling into the forest. That approach also has the disadvantage of leading to disillusionment and in the end disengagement of those trying it because the results are meager.