It's not a very good article and others have criticized it fairly, but I just want to harp on the constant degradation of anything even remotely resembling "conspiracy theory" as innately batshit crazy, delusion, and based on some on some other reason than any form of logic (as the author attempts towards the end dismissing it as entertainment). Of course those versions of "conspiracy theory" exist, but there is a vast and lengthy history of the world chock full of evidence that conspiracies of various types and degrees have been sucessfully (and sometimes not) executed regularly. I have taken to Michael Parenti's labeling of those who constantly take this approach as "coincidence theorists", and in particular his criticism that incompetence theories distract from proper understanding and analysis of malice.

>In retrospect, the entire story starts to look like a classic conspiracy theory, attributing complex, multi-layered events to the secret machinations of shadowy behind-the-scenes operators deploying cutting-edge technology.

As if this is so far fetched. I can name countless cases where this is exactly what has happened!

> “technical delusion” — a term that may encompass any and all delusions about technology, but usually designates a belief in machines that can control, surveil, harass, and deceive humans.

Machines and technology enable and empower the humans with the desire to do these things. The technology of the authors over-abused reference of James Matthews may have been fanciful then, but the things that concern those with "technical delusion" today exist in reality.

The author even later admits that there is a basis in reality of "elites were secretly manipulating political events behind the scenes".

>Suspicions regarding the hyper-concentration of wealth and power have attained broad bipartisan currency — in part because they are grounded in reality.

I've been down so many rabbit holes and have read so many conspiracy theories I will admit some of them border on psychosis manifesting, but I have also found the ones that aren't, and the constant attempt to label all or almost all of them under the label of psychosis or some variant itself reeks of conspiracy. The irony being that the oft-abused term itself was largely pushed into modern parlance by the CIA seeking to discredit critics of the Warren commission[1], or for example the 2008 Cass Sunstein paper [2] prior to his appointment as the head of White House Information affairs that called for cognitive infiltration of discussion boards et al.

I could blather on about this kind of out in the open subversion for a while, but that's not the point. The real point is that it is a fact that conspiracies are real and that they happen rather frequently, even if not always on the scale or level of impact often purported by those in that realm of discussion. Another note that I have tried to emphasize is that it is important to distinguish the type of logic used to reach conclusions. We generally should always prefer deductive logic, which is evidence based, but in many of the topics discussed there simply is no or is a dearth of evidence to be had, which is where the importance of inductive logic comes into place.

Unlike the authors proposition that those who think some conspiracies to be true must be rooted in anything but truth, my anecdotal experience has been from starting with only one maxim. That I would rather know the truth than the lie, in particular the ugly truth over the beautiful lie. What started out for me just as the meager attempts of a USMC Iraq combat vet to understand his own place in what could truly be called a vast conspiracy (the war), became a lifelong journey of transformation in understanding the bigger picture of the realities of this world. Let me tell you, it is so much more conspiratorial than most would ever want to know (and I base this upon good, strong evidence, and where that is lacking, good inductive logic). I think most people honestly would prefer the beautiful lie. My problem always has been and probably always will be when those who prefer the lie try to tell me the lie is truth, and then attack when incredulity inevitably rises as a reaction.

[1]https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Countering_Criticism_of...

[2]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585