> It took years — eight years and counting in exile — for me to realize that I was missing the point: we talk about conspiracy theories in order to avoid talking about conspiracy practices, which are often too daunting, too threatening, too total.

I disagree. People (at least, some people) are just naturally drawn to mysteries. Imaginary things aren't interesting despite the lack of evidence for them, they're interesting because of the lack of evidence. Everyone likes a good mystery.

Look at bigfoot. It's pretty much described as a great ape. It's described as being large, and being a little more bipedal than most apes, but there's no more interesting than a gorilla. I suppose it's a little interesting that an old world ape found its way to America (perhaps a descendent of the Yeti that travelled across through the arctic?), but there's similar interest in mysterious apes in most of the world.

Somehow, a lot of people are more interested in imaginary apes than real apes. Here's a quote about Bigfoot I found on Wikipedia:

> "Well now you will be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist."[162] She later added, chuckling, "Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist", and finally, "You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."[163] In 2012, when asked again by the Huffington Post, Goodall said "I'm fascinated and would actually love them to exist," adding, "Of course, it's strange that there has never been a single authentic hide or hair of the Bigfoot, but I've read all the accounts."[164]

This is Jane Goodall, who is probably the best known primatologist of all time, not some conspiracy theorist. If Jane Goodall can be impressed by an ape simply because it's so mysterious (because it doesn't exist), this says a lot about the allure of a mystery.

But back to the main point - why is it that open conspiracies are less scary? I think it's fairly rational to be less worried at a visible threat, since a lack of widespread opposition shows that it's not taken to be a serious threat by the rest of the population. If the President announces that electronic communications are routinely being monitored, then that seems pretty safe. There's no serious opposition to it, so people must not care too much, so it's reasonable to assume it's not a great danger. On the other hand, if there was only a conspiracy theory, then you could assume that the lack of serious opposition was due to a lack of knowledge of the conspiracy.

If (picking something outlandish) Bill Gates announced that he was implanting everyone with micro-chips to extend 5G networks and help the police track criminals, a lot of people would grumble, but I doubt there would be a serious opposition to it, and people would feel reassured that this means it's not a serious issue.

How serious is mass surveillance, really? I certainly understand some people strongly objecting, but it's not like I do much more than use a VPN (which might be compromised anyway).