Yes, because that implies they will not be silent about it privately (which means it’s not “just silence”) since there is a circumstance in future they will talk, just behind closed doors.
But I’m not sure if not-in-public is explicit enough to be considered a “strategy”.
Let’s say you live in an authoritarian surveillance. I would consider staying silent about your opinion of the regime both publicly and privately to be strategic.
If there is a topic on which a person decided never to speak publicly—for example because of reputation risks—is it strategic?
Yes, because that implies they will not be silent about it privately (which means it’s not “just silence”) since there is a circumstance in future they will talk, just behind closed doors.
But I’m not sure if not-in-public is explicit enough to be considered a “strategy”.
Let’s say you live in an authoritarian surveillance. I would consider staying silent about your opinion of the regime both publicly and privately to be strategic.