A lot of trees in the Amazon are getting burned on the text talking about strategy for this movement this usually devolves into arguments about minutea that seems prudent. I posit this is incorrect and that we've already organically created the correct strategy. I would argue the most important thing is getting the spark kicking off as many places as possible, in as many ways as possible. Arguing minutiae is actually really counterproductive to this goal. That's why I choose to see this movement as creating an egregore.
Let the beast grow, let it radicalize each worker in its own way. Let the beast feed on this, then let each worker go forth and act on this radicalization in their own way. Let them evangelize the egregore when people ask what's up.
Then one day it will get wide enough and conditions are right the spark will catch and set the forest on fire. That's how social change occurs. It has to hit a saturation point where so many swings are being taken at bat that one connects.
People focus on getting the swing exactly correct and when it fails to hit a homer they start eating each other alive over trivial shit as to why it failed. I'll take a million shitty noobs at bat against this MLB all-star pitcher we're fighting than one swing by the best batter we can rationalize.
The internet is really bad at creating actual real world social groups. What it excels at beyond a doubt is memetics and radicalization within a group framework. That's why we focus on the egregore. Maybe that post you write or that coworker you tell is the one that sparks the tiny spark that catches the whole world on fire.
Only then, when this digital movement has become just widespread in meatspace as it seems it has become here then do we start focusing on the concrete tactics and laying the actual political framework for a real broad based change in our respective cultures.