[grzm]

Pizzagate similarly went viral across social media. Is the meaningful distinction you'd like to make is that it was reported in a newspaper? In this case, Michael Flynn, then part of Trump's transition team, tweeted vague insinuations of child sex crimes which surely did nothing to dampen suspicions.

U decide - NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes w Children, etc...MUST READ!

Even after the shooting, Flynn's son tweeted explicitly:

Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it'll remain a story. The left seems to forget #PodestaEmails and the many 'coincidences' tied to it.

Here on HN there were plenty of comments if not actively promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, entertaining the possibility that it was legit. The employees of Comet Ping Pong and nearby businesses received backlash, including death threats. This escalated to a shooting by someone who took it upon himself it investigate the matter personally. Fortunately no one was shot. Pizzagate was false on numerous levels.

Both of them are misrepresentations that went viral, supported by people driven by partisan issues. I think both of them are atrocious and shouldn't be excused. They are unfortunately a symptom of the terrible state of current political discourse.

I'm genuinely interested in the distinction you draw between them.

[caminante]

  Both of them are misrepresentations that went viral, supported 
  by people driven by partisan issues.

Though, I agree this criteria applies to both stories, it's also too general. Respectfully, this criteria fits ANY news event.

A key distinction I'd draw is that the Memories Pizza saga began due to a singular mistake in reporting that spun out of control. Had that one mistake not happened, Memories Pizza likely wouldn't have blown up. Whereas, Pizzagate became the label for an inter-related network of human trafficking conspiracies that had already gained critical mass. People that started piling on, weren't necessarily piling on false-hoods. Instead, they were piling on unverified conspiracies.

[grzm]

Agreed on the "too general" part. Not sure if it's useful to narrow it down, as I don't think that definition is doing any more work for the discussion.

People that started piling on, weren't necessarily piling on false-hoods. Instead, they were piling on unverified conspiracies.

What's the distinction here? That on the one hand they're saying "I'm not sure, but it sure looks suspicious!" and on the other "Look what they did!" Is that a meaningful distinction?

Why the focus on a singular mistake in reporting?

At the end of it all, adding weight to Memories Pizza with a statement like

The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint because of the answer one of the family members gave to a reporter.

while dismissing Pizzagate which was arguably fueled in part explicitly by the Trump campaign (as opposed to some amorphous "left") seems grossly unfair.

I don't think I have anything to add to this. It looks as empty and partisan as the original comment, unfortunately. I commend you for stepping up and taking the time to discuss this with me. I honestly appreciate it. I'd have liked to have heard from 'rhapsodic as well.