If George Goros did only one percent of what he is accused of by conspiracy theorists he would already be one of the most effective world leaders ever.

I get the mental need for conspiracy theories to have satisfying but ultimately unprovable and nebulous actors that enact the acts theorised about; lizard people? Sure great. A worldwide paedosexual cabal? Why not. But George Soros? Is it the combination of being rich, Jewish, progressive, somewhat influential, and also foreign enough to pin on any theory one likes? I guess the name-dropping by nationalist autocratic leaders doesn't help either.

Funding (activist) organizations is a very effective way to get influence with money. This is exactly what the Gates fundation is doing for example. So it’s stupid to compare the funding that can be somewhat tracked and proved made by an individual or organization (some people did it, hence that name became famous) to crackpot theories like lizard people.

This is fairly respected regional news source (note their coverage of protesters killed): https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-regime-seizes-b...

Aung San Suu Kyi is photographed with Soros. Open Society bank accounts seem legitimate. I'm not on either side here.

I'm frustrated by the top level for throwing out a wild accusation. I'm also frustrated by the other replies, who leap on without due diligence.

So a foundation with the stated goal of financially supporting "civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media." (wikipedia) has funded one of the highest-profile pro-democracy activists of our time? Is that the "conspiracy" here?

Surely there is a rather large gap between an NGO supporting programs that promote democracy and being an actual sock-puppet of George Soros?

The literally anti-democratic Myanmarese military regime shutting down any initiatives that promote forms of democracy makes perfect sense from their point of view.

Being able to point to Soros and such is convenient for a junta, because it makes it look as if democracy (or whatever 'western' value they don't like) is an import imposed on them rather than the grass-roots development it is.

It’s a poor use of time to give every conspiracy theory “due diligence”, as you put it.

For instance: what if it’s aliens? What if it’s the mice-people? What if it’s mind control by giant squid? What if it’s a conspiracy being lead by the silica gel industry?

Do you want to do your due diligence on those, or would you discard them out of hand as patently ridiculous?

Are you questioning the facts of Irrawaddy's reporting?

The lesson was supposed to show you should have not assumed "aliens", when it is actually "reality".

I want people to adjust their nuance, but that seems difficult.

Begging the question. The whole issue is, what actually is just a conspiracy theory?