"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You know this is just as effective if you don’t pretend to provide a substantial justification. Flamebait can be anything you want it to be. Seize the power, dang.

> Snowden's revelations proved once again that conspiracies are all false, because it is literally impossible for large numbers of people to keep their mouth shut.

That's both a good point and not so much. In the end, they didn't keep their mouths shut, Snowden spilled the beans and uncovered the large conspiracy. It's a good point with regard to "that would require a large conspiracy, and those don't work" not being a good argument against theories: there might be a large conspiracy that just hasn't failed yet.

And who knows how many more years or decades the large conspiracy would have worked just fine if Snowden hadn't leaked.

Its also important to note Snowden wasn't the first NSA person to warn us about this, there were a handful in the 2000s before him.

I think you did not want to state Epstein is innocent right? That would go counter to your prior point.

And yes, conspiracy theorists don't have an accurate appreciation of how hard it is to manage projects and keep them secret.

Are you saying that conspiracies don't exist because secrets are hard to keep?

Are you implying you don't know the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories?

There are plenty of conspiracies, plenty of which have become known. The point is that there is a limit to the number of participants, significance and age of those that are not yet known.

FFS stop spreading this nonsense.

Can you elaborate on the nonsensical aspect of it?

There's plenty of platforms out there to spread your truther nonsense.