There is a problem with reflexively dismissing "conspiracy theories": it increases the attack surface for deceiving the public. Imagine telling a computer user

There is a problem with reflexively dismissing "conspiracy theories": it increases the attack surface for deceiving the public. Imagine telling a computer user "Don't be so paranoid, it's safe to open that binary. Do you really think there's some conspiracy to hijack your computing power as part of some botnet? Har har!" Case-by-case, you'd be right nearly all of the time (at least for software the user sought out themselves, and didn't get linked to by spam). But by dismissing that concern out of hand, it becomes far more likely the user won't do 5 minutes of Google research, and will open an untrusted binary that really is unsafe. Skepticism should apply across the board, and certainty should be an unachievable asymptote for "official" and "crackpot" explanations alike. There is a sufficient track record of powerful entities successfully deceiving the public that even the craziest of theories should be examined and considered, if only to spread the antibodies of skepticism.