I may as well respond to the Youtube video here given the age of the other post:

I think despite the disclaimers, the video is actually encouraging people to blow up a pipeline, but to do it right. It offers some examples:

• If you are part of the community, you can get access to the materials at scale, something the loners in this movie couldn’t do (and therefore risked their lives). That is, if you want to do this, a lot of people need to / should know about it and help you get the materials you need.
• The chemistry that is being used is unsafe, so don’t just copy-paste it. I’d think that was obvious but, I think the specific thing the video is trying to tell you is that bombs can be made safely, and anyone trying should do so in a way that their safety is not compromised.
• The processes and procedures used in the film are unsafe or nonsensical. This is only really made in the context that no one should copy the film.

The conclusion is a bit crazy though, that the expert opinions they got in the film purposely made the bomb making unsafe or that informants should be trusted. I think more likely is the idea that they wanted to depict the characters as a bit derpy, and the plan as crazy and dangerous. That’s what ratchets up the tension.

• A community all organising together doesn’t make sense because the point of the book is that the community is currently against property destruction (and the movie by extension is trying to advocate for that community engaging in property destruction, that’s arguably what happens at the end).
• Safe bomb-making techniques would make the film laborious and less interesting
• Not trusting the informant wouldn’t leave a twist in the film.
• The video seems to be advocating for a how-to guide rather than a fictional film.

The video is a bit “If you’ve played the Uncharted series don’t try rock climbing like Nathan Drake”.