[tclancy]

Because giving every maniac an equal voice and hearing them out is asymmetric. They have the burden of proof to have said “my perfectly validated facts I’ve learned in two decades as a scientist” or whatever if they wanted to provide that context.

Then again, here I am arguing in good faith with you, so more the fool I.

[mannanj]

Just to be clear, are you calling me a Maniac without actually knowing me or what I've done or my experience? and throwing off the word "conspiracy" theory and attempting to simply shut down my voice.

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

I can't wait until one day you get old enough and wise enough to hold a voice that is anti-mainstream or anti-populist, and some youngin throws your words Conspiracy right back at you to censor you. Enjoy what we call, "Karma" my friend.

[JumpCrisscross]

> They have the burden of proof

This isn’t how the algorithm works. It costs less than $10k to get some conspiratorial nonsense circulating nowadays, and less than $1mm to flood the zone.

[tclancy]

Sorry, I think this got confused because you can only reply so deep. I meant conspiracy theory folks should have the burden of proof. If you're saying that's completely naive in the current climate, I agree. I am only arguing that's how we should treat commenters who seem more than 7 bubbles off plumb: ignore entirely unless they provide reason not to.

[JumpCrisscross]

> ignore entirely unless they provide reason not to

The reason not to is they start trending and then infecting the political system. By the time anyone brings evidence to the table, the status quo has been shifted.