> “Cotton’s views should be associated with conspiracy theories and misinformation,” even though his core factual claim was not particularly different from what

> “Cotton’s views should be associated with conspiracy theories and misinformation,” even though his core factual claim was not particularly different from what anyone was else was saying. Does the author not know how conspiracy theories and misinformation campaigns work? I'm not sure how useful it is doing a hotwash on how we could have been so remiss as to ignore the comments of a public official whose views are often associated with conspiracy theories and misinformation, even if this one time they were not.