A successful protest reaches people outside of a cause, compelling them to learn more, in hopes that they ultimately become a supporter.

Performative radicalized protests are only compelling to those already behind the cause, and immediately discredited by those you need to reach.

That's not how any of this works.

A protests' success is judged by how much publicity it receives, and the disproportionate scale of the reaction from antagonists to the movement. Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem was a successful protest because he was a public figure and had a national stage, and the reaction of conservatives throwing fits over a symbolic gesture highlighted the racism typically hidden in polite white society. The police riot in Selma got national attention because of the graphic scenes of white police beating black folks in Sunday dress, and the scale of the police response to people engaging in peaceful protest revealed the violence inherent in Jim Crow apartheid.

Likewise, the Stonehenge protest was extremely successful because it received international attention, and the disproportionate outrage over harmless dust compared to the real threat of climate change puts a spotlight to the widespread apathy of society to the threat.

You think protests are supposed to reach you specifically, because you're sympathetic to the protests old enough to read about in history books. But your opinion of those protests is mediated by the society that those protests have already successfully altered. The moderate of the past would have considered those historical protests 'performative' and 'radicalized' as well. They would also be on the wrong side of history.