How many people agree with you isn't a measure of whether your argument or actions are right or wrong. It's just a measure of how much people agree with you, and whether you are going to succeed or not in that action. It doesn't even say whether you're going to influence others or not.
I mean... a lot of things like this start rather small and go on to grow or not. Discussion, arguments and fighting on are what changes things, not just starting something and giving up because you don't find many people agreeing with you.
You have to consider you are right when other people present arguments that counter yours, facts that recontextualise or change things, present examples of something already being done and worked or did not, etc. The volume of people arguing against you doesn't change the quality of your argument.
I mean - have we not seen what platforms like Reddit can easily devolve into, where the amount of people who agree with you literally determines what comments nad posts get to the top? That often leads to a significant amount of misinformation, poor arguments, and incredibly incorrect things. It encourages echo chambers, where only 'right' opinions can be expressed. (Reddit isn't the worst and the actual harm of low karma is fairly low, but it does cause people to act in weird ways to heavily downvoted people, especially since Reddit no longer shows how many people agree or disagree with a post)
A traditional forum structure avoids that. That's why we're even able to have a conversation like this, right now.
