Joining in a philosophical (not partisan) manner in the drift from the OP's topic of the young lady's whereabouts and activities towards discussion of 'when is what sort of action to bring about change justified or, indeed, useful rather than counter-productive ?'; some observations and postulations from a politics and history nerd:
In a democratic society most citizens are more or less happy, and apathetic or quietly uneasy about suggested 'change' of any sort, 'small c conservative'. This means that any advocates of change start at a disadvantage compared to the supporters of the 'status quo'. Furthermore, in societies with a 'free(ish) press' (sic), the supporters of that status quo are likely to have a considerable, and often commanding, interest and influence over that press, and be inclined to use it to influence their readers against change. The monopoly of the printed media in influencing wider society has, however, been attenuated by radio over ~100 years, TV (~70 in UK, longer in US), and social media (~20, international). All those newer media may also, of course, have a bias which may be slight or extreme to support or oppose change, and may usually (in a freeish society) be chosen by an intended audience for broadcasting by switching off or retuning; but for social media increasingly by sophisticated targetting of the 'likely sympathetic', thereby in many cases now mirroring the early 'broadcasting monopolies' but now as antagonistic duopolies. And social media can easily accommodate and propagate outright mendacity without accommodating any voices in rebuttal.
For any proposed change, there will be a spectrum of support/opposition from extremes (will do whatever it takes including physical violence against opponents), through broadly sympathetic/opposing willing to take physical but non-violent and occasionally illegal or disruptive action, through sympathetic/opposing unwilling to take such action, to sympathetic/opposing but positively put off by any such action, even to withdrawing their support. And then, finally, the apathetic/uninterested centre, who, I postulate above, may be at least slightly inclined to 'no change', and may be a majority, likely in particular to oppose (passively) any disruption to their own lives, at work or leisure. As may be currently seen with BLM (regularly lethally violent in US, occasionally violent and certainly disruptive in UK), the extreme opponents have been at least as violent as the proponents, and seem (at least to me) more likely to attract the 'cheerfully but unthinkingly thuggish, grateful for the excuse'. It does not help when the rhetoric of some politicians seems to favour or at least to excuse the thuggery. But there was similar violence, occasionally lethal, and supporting political and press rhetoric in the past opposing women's suffrage, decriminalisation of homosexuality, etc; issues where that previous opposition let alone its virulence is incomprehensible to most of today's younger people in UK, at least. But the opposition can be long lasting: the Equal Rights Amendment has still not been ratified in enough US States ~50 years after being passed by Congress, usually stymied by obstructive filibustering in the legislatures of the remainder, despite local polls clearly favouring passage.
The challenge for the proponents of (any) change, then, is to win over enough of the less extremist and conservative centre without alienating too many of their existing (but less activist) potential supporters, and the 'apathetic and slightly resistant' centre. Governments can help or hinder by 'nudge' (example) or 'shove' (law or regulation); or may choose not to, or to backpedal. And 'events' (such as pandemics) can intervene.
All of which, I suppose, is fairly obvious, but interesting at least to me.