Privately agreeing might be preferable in countries where these projects are useful.
As I said, the favoured course of action for some dissident communities is instead retreating into the private sphere and trying to live one’s best life there. I have heard that this is a common attitude among dissidents in China, too.
I'm not sure that this kind of passivity can properly be described as "dissidence". Surely dissidents are people who speak up, taking a risk with their own security?
At any rate, I don't want to quibble about semantics. If you disagree with your government, but aren't prepared to speak up, then you're at best getting in the way. Passivity is what authoritarian governments depend on, so passive "dissidents" are like collaborators.
The claim that such dissidents are collaborators is, again, Western-centric. Dissidents can and have argued that the regime's internal contradictions will eventually undermine it, without them having to take actions that put themselves at risk or leave them open to accusations of aiding the enemy.
I count that as "speaking up". GP spoke of people who retreat into what seems to be passive silence.
Incidentally, I said they're like collaborators; I didn't say they were collaborators. I meant they're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I said people who retreat into private words. Samizdat was a private world. Events held in people’s homes was private worlds. Writing non-conforming literature or music “for one’s desk drawer” was a private world. Modern dissidents using censorship-evading, privacy-guaranteeing software to enjoy community are in private worlds.
Calling such dissidents “part of the problem” is not helpful. There have been famous cases where Westerners’ demands for how dissidents should behave, actually pushed dissidents closer to the regime.