First off apologies for the condescending tone. I see that conspiracy angle touted out so often, and get tired of seeing people intentionally mis-explain it like that.

You clarified how it is used in your rebuttal and that's fine, but it's not at all what you were saying before. You could have just as easily used something along the lines of "The government manufacturers these dialogs and controls both sides of the coin." and then provided some solid examples backed with citations from credible sources.

You appear to think these guys are way more organized than they are and I can tell you first hand what you describe isn't within the capabilities of the system to pull off. There has never been a conspiracy that was successful because people suck at keeping secrets.

There's an old saying, don't mistake incompetence for malice, even if it feels that way. No one in government is any different than you or I. There aren't secret clubs, or cabals or illuminati, or jewish banking conspiracies or a global elite with some unified plan. There are just people, some of whom are bad, most of whom are good though.

Instead you mis-informed your readership by implying it's a term of the conspirators.
People are going to take your words at face value and it's not just you. I see this floating around and correct it wherever I can because mis-informed people make bad decisions based on fear.

"You repeat things like this and it spreads like wildfire because 50% of the population has an IQ below the median average, but they account now for 80% of the internet traffic."

I would love to see a source for these stats as it seems like you pulled them out of your arse. One thing is for sure though, you speak with a tone of superiority.

That's pretty much the definition of median average. 50% will be below it. As for accounting for 80% of traffic, I should clarify that this is a reference to social media traffic so I misspoke. Either way you're right I pulled it out of my ass. I used IQ as a proxy for education level and ability and desire to think critically. It's pretty much self evident by looking at what trends, what is popular and what people accept into their vision of reality. Point is people are impressionable they aren't going to search an obscure term when you give them a definition that sounds legit. This is what I was attacking.

One thing is for sure though, you speak with a tone of superiority, so I can presume that you feel you are above average intelligence.

No I don't consider myself above average, just average. I've never made any claim to superiority, but I do try to help people think critically, because I look around me and I see it lacking.

You ought to think twice before attempting to show how clever you apparently are, because to me, you have simply made yourself look arrogant and exceptionally silly.

If you thought this was me being clever you'd be wrong. I apologize for the condescending tone. It wasn't intentional, but it was there. Words have meaning and they have impact. The way I talked to you is the way I talk to my friends while sitting around having a meal or a drink at a bar, but you don't know me so there isn't a way for you to get a read on it. This is something I need to work on, so I'll work on it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.