[troupo]

> And for the second time this week, someone demands "evidence" for expressions of distrust.

Funny then that to illustrate your point you use this example: "You would not call a prosecutor who accuses someone of 'criminal conspiracy' a conspiracy theorist". You know what separates criminal prosecutors from conspiracy theorists? They have to provide evidence.

Or this example: "A terrorist cell is just another example of a real type of group which obviously conspires. You're not a conspiracy theorist for believing they exist." Yes, because we have evidence that they exist.

See how this works? A theory with no supporting evidence is a crackpot theory.

For example, I can say anything I want about you. When asked about evidence, I can lapse into demagoguery about terrorist cells or something. Perhaps you are a part of a terrorist cell? Otherwise, why bring them into discussion?

[vintermann]

To repeat the salient part, lawyer guy: Conspiracy theorists is something we call people who believe in a grand conspiracy, one which, had it been real, would have required superhuman levels of coordination and secrecy. That's the brush you for some mysterious reason want to tar critics of Spotify with.

And sure, if you insist I'll refrain from speculating why you're so obsessed with defending a megacorporation and insisting they deserve the benefit of doubt. Feel free to provide evidence to explain. (Remember, by your own standard, your own opinions aren't evidence).

[troupo]

> if you insist I'll refrain from speculating why you're so obsessed with defending a megacorporation and insisting they deserve the benefit of doubt

I'm pointing out unsubstantiated claims, often to people who don't know jack shit about music industry (e.g. that's why almost every comment in this thread has a variation of "Spotify doesn't pay artists, Spotify pays rights holders")

Note how you still haven't said anything of substance except emotions and ad hominems. But sure, your position is correct and valid, and not mine.