[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.