I don't think anything Onno said is "extremist", I just think it's so vague that what they think might be happening is indecipherable. Makes it more likely to be rage/engagement bait, imo.

But it's not extreme to think that perhaps, given the current anti-anonymity push among governments worldwide, and the fact this uses DHTs and P2P routing, governments might love to tarnish those things in peoples' minds in order to more readily accept banning of bittorrent, onion routing, TOR, etc, which can help bypass a lot of the dangerous government net restrictions and surveillance being put in place.

Do you think that government intrusion into media, or the existence of online influence campaigns, are "extremist" conspiracies rather than proven realities?

By extremist, I was referring to the absurdity of the statement. Either it's the end of the world, or the article authors are conspirators. Surely it can't be something simple that isn't on one end of a spectrum. This is what leads to radicalization.

Do you think that government intrusion into media, or the existence of online influence campaigns, are "extremist" conspiracies rather than proven realities?

They are both. An extremism can be real. A conspiracy can be proven true, and in your example it is.

There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, the authors of the article in question are conspirators. There is no reason to believe the contents of the article are intended to be anything more than informational, even if with the inherent bias all authors posess. To perceive it as such would be a sign of extreme radicalization or, as you put it, an "online influence campaign" which would be conveniently set before a midterm election in the US.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the commenter actually is part of some campaign. I wouldn't know. I do believe its contents are extreme though.

So to be clear, asking whether an article has ulterior motives qualifies as an "extremist" question, in your eyes?

Because that seems a pretty extreme limitation on acceptable critical and contextual interrogation of news, to me. You should always be asking that question, in a world where 90% of news orgs are owned by people with heavy political connections and influence.

The suggestion that the authors of an article have ulterior motives is an extreme position to take, yes.

At no point did I ever say that it's a bad thing to hold that position, nor did I say it's an invalid position, nor did I say it's an incorrect position*. But in the society we live in, that position is pretty extreme

*Edit: as a general claim, and obviously only for trustworthy sources. For this particular article, it is a ridiculous position to take though.

Edit 2: I'm really confused what the point of this is. Are you defending that this article might reasonably be published with ulterior motives? Are you arguing over the semantics of the word "extreme"? Are you defending that the original comment reads like a sane interpretation of the article, even if flawed?

But in the society we live in, that position is pretty extreme.

By what metric? And "Extreme" and "Extremist" are two different words, with different meanings and connotations.

Extreme simply means the far end of a spectrum. Extremist means

having or involving beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable

(and that's even avoiding the legal definitions that exist in e.g. the UK that specifically tie "extremist" to violence)

At no point did I ever say that it’s a bad thing to hold that position

Without offering any metric by which to assert that, you most certainly did convey the commonly understood negative connotation by calling it extremist.

I added a second edit it appears after your comment, but repeating it here: what's the point of this? To me it seems like an argument over the semantics of a word which I honestly couldn't care less about. Are you defending that the commenter's comment reads like a sane interpretation of the article?

Nobody here is saying that it's ridiculous to question your sources or try to identify potential bias in articles. Those are things you should always do. That's not what this commenter was doing, though.

The final question presents a false dichotomy that it is the end of the internet or that the authors are pushing an agenda. This is a belief "that most people think [is] unreasonable and unacceptable" (as you put it) in the context of this specific article, which is what their comment was in response to.

I have no issue with anything that precedes that, obviously.