The problem with the colloquial 'conspiracy' (as opposed to the standard legal definition of people working together towards a generally nefarious goal), is that they are impossible to disprove, for the most part. Evidence to the contrary is disregarded, and the lack of supporting evidence is used as additional evidence ('the real evidence is being hidden by those in power').

What I see in these documents, and based on responses, is that the case is strong. I do see that it is from states that disagree with me philosophically and politically. This information is irrelevant and is categorization error and outgroup bias; the same things that I would request my current political opposition to give up, without success.

If we all suffer from these cognitive illusions and refuse to abandon them, then we cannot grow as a society or a people; we can never have a shared understanding because the experiences I am basing decisions on are not a real.

Discussing a "Vast right-wing conspiracy against Google" might be falsifiable with perfect information, but what percentage of 'right wing' conspirators must there be before it is determined true? How many 'right-wing' members - of which there are at least 74M - would I have to poll to find out if the conspiracy is vast?

I don't deny that we are in an [mis]information war, but the boundaries of that are much better known and are often discussed by security experts.