America has three types of "conspiracy theorists"

* Logically consistent in niche fields that could be verified if more information was public (Room 641A); these should really just be called "theories"

* Harmless garbage ideas perpetuated by dumb people (flat earthers); these theories deserve open ridicule

* Propaganda created by intelligent people with the intent of causing harm (Uranium One); these should simply be illegal as libel

Those are important distinctions. Some conspiracy theories are straight up garbage, they do not deserve any modicum of respect... legitimate theories are in the minority.

  * Harmless garbage ideas perpetuated by dumb people (flat earthers); these theories deserve open ridicule

Antivaxxers certainly fall into what you call "garbage ideas perpetuated by dumb people"

Those theories are anything but harmless, actually kill people and sabotage decades of medicinal breakthroughts, which saved millions of lifes.

True.... though I bucket that under my last grouping, because I think there's a conspiracy attacking the legitimacy and experience of scientists. If the public mistrusts doctors and vaccines, they're more likely to distrust climate change and anti-refined-sugar research.

Yes, they are important distinctions. But the problem is how to not mistake one for the others?

Think?

Can you elaborate on Uranium One being 'libel'? As far as I know from reading the Wiki, this went to a Congressional Investigation.

Libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression

The "Uranium One conspiracy theory" was a libelous attack on a political candidate. That attack is a prime example of legitimate conspiracies.

The problem is that a lot of people that complain about actual issues, like Facebook stalking, also try telling people about a lot of things that are totally conspiracy theories.

On top of that, as someone with experience in database marketing, people act as if they are being personally spied on. If you are tracking 800k people and you have 20 employees, the issue isn't really having another person looking at your data, the issue is the unethical ways organizations are using that data to manipulate you and the rest of society.

It's the difference between "The government conducts unethical surveillance" and "The government is spying on me."

The issue is that the difference between the "The government conducts unethical surveillance." and "The government is spying on me." has essentially disappeared.

When everything is remembered forever anything you've done can be retroactively traced backed to you when you become a person of interest.

That's a good point on how you phrase what they are doing. You want to avoid implying that you or the person you are talking to is being targeted (because they're not really and it makes you look like a conspiracy theorist).