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?