That's not really true. Julian Blanc is a good example. He made the decision that it's useful to be world famous and it doesn't matter much what you are famous for. Then he did provocative things and contacted reporters. Afterwards he got attacked. He became world famous and his sales increased.

He backed down and issued public apologies, and has gone considerably quieter since then. Doesn't seem to me that he ended up where he wanted to.

In Antifragile Nassim Taleb claims that one of the reasons Ayn Rand has the influence she has on US culture because she managed to get viciously attacked by a lot of people.

You might want to observe how she responded to attacks, as well.

I'm not seeing a point of that advice. In a public controversy it means that journalists can write articles about how you admited to a weak version but didn't fully admit to the wrong doing and call on you to admit to a stronger version.

They wouldn't, for three reasons. First, by admitting to a weak version, you cut off the central controversy, making it no longer newsworthy. Second, by attacking somebody with an admitted problem, they look like aggressors going after a victim. Third, they feel like they've already won.