Forums are mainly tools for sensemaking, and outdated ones at that (the format hasn't changed much since the late 90's):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking
People favour plausibility over accuracy in accounts of events and contexts (Currie & Brown, 2003; Brown, 2005; Abolafia, 2010): "in an equivocal, postmodern world, infused with the politics of interpretation and conflicting interests and inhabited by people with multiple shifting identities, an obsession with accuracy seems fruitless, and not of much practical help, either" (Weick 1995: 61).
Anyway, paranoid people tend to also be alienated from society, have a distinct inability to trust others around them and are hyper-sensitive to any facts that fit their given narrative. The deeper they go into it the more energy and time they have invested in it, it's a vicious positive feedback loop. It's hard to "rehabilitate" or even casually discuss things with someone who thinks he is smarter and knows more than you. Your life is then defined by the things that you know, but no one else does.
Knowing things with certainty can be quite difficult and much of conspiracy literature exists as 2nd or 3rd hand accounts and it's not like we can interview aliens to ask them their opinion of UFO abductions. For the most part the history of conspiracy theory is made up of people using the wrong tools and frame to solve problems. Activists or tinfoilers sometimes exaggerate the numbers or behaviors to get attention to their cause (and/or themselves), with little recognition of the fact that awareness alone won't change issues that are fundamentally about corrupt and criminal behavior of those who are in positions of power that allow them to conceal their misdeeds. I don't think the vague "they" is the problem. The media has refined escape-goating to the point that there is always an other that can be summoned, be it the FBI, CIA, feminism, the Illuminati, the Catholic church or liberals. Much of modern politics revolves around the fact that we don't really like a particularly candidate, we just hate the other one enough that we'll settle for the oppositions side. Western culture is becoming defined by what it hates and wants to fight in lieu of an actual identity and coherent purpose.
There's a few good academic treatments for instance of the structure of communication networks involved in conspiracies,
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/50297/1/c50297.pdfdemonstrate how understanding
social networks is an essential part of comprehending how organized criminals succeed. The data
for the current study was taken from the transcripts of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry
which uncovered the extensive and resilient corruption network operated by Herbert. Herbert’s
relationships have been plotted to establish the nature of his operations. The findings indicate that
communication of trust both allows for success and sets the boundaries of a network. Most
importantly, this case study identifies Herbert’s reliance on holding a monopoly as the
cornerstone of his network power and position. This article adds to the literature on criminal
career paths by moving away from a classic organized criminal grouping into the area of police
corruption, and uncovers the distinctive opportunities that this position offers the career criminal.
https://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiad ... 12-E39.pdfIn contrast to non-corrupt projects, corrupt networks have lower connectivity, fewer reciprocal relations, and communicate less frequently. These different patterns also hold for between- and within-subject studies. For individuals, corrupt communications, as compared to non-corrupt communications, are less frequent, less likely to be reciprocated, and have reduced transitivity, meaning that message recipients are not as likely to share a communication link. This study highlights the role of content in understanding the emergent properties of communication networks.
