I'm not actually here to discuss the articles so I'm not going to get derailed by detailing my thoughts on them when the subject I'm in here to talk about is you.

And, no, Auzy is not being a conspiracy theorist because the theory being proposed contains no conspiracy: they're just accusing one individual of lying. And I'll reiterate that I think they're wrong because you don't think of the messages you share as being your own in the first place. What it looks like to me is that you're just sharing things that were brought to you on other social media platforms that inspired strong feelings in you and inspiring strong feelings regardless of objective reality is what social media entirely and news stories largely exist to do.

Let's look at how you behaved in the other thread Auzy mentioned, to illustrate this. You were more talkative in that thread so it's a better illustration of what I'm talking about.

They say it looks like you're advocating for people buying guns, you respond by citing a history of conservatives trying to take guns away from progressives with the insinuation that this is evidence that it's correct for progressives to own guns. They say that that response makes it look even more like you're advocating for people to buy guns, you respond by saying you wish people didn't need to own guns but reiterating that they totally do need to own guns. They complain that you are continuing to advocate for gun ownership, you respond by posting a photograph of a man with a message written on his guitar that more people should have guns. (I assume from context I was supposed to recognize him as a sort of appeal to authority, of left-wing street cred for promoting gun ownership, but I'm not into music so I don't know who it is.)

Now in this thread, you refer back to that and say that was evidence of Auzy being a conspiracy theorist on the basis that... you repeatedly affirmed that you did in fact hold the position they said you held. You consider yourself anti-gun on the basis that in your vision of a utopia they wouldn't be around and thus you call that accusation unfounded but your action is that you promote widespread gun ownership by sharing this article that says the threat of gun violence is the solution to a societal ill.

You deny that it is a feel-good story but the subject is that there is an organization taking care of those in need. There is a long history of news media framing acts of charity like this as evidence that society is a good place because people are taking care of each other when it would be more accurate to frame it as society being in a bad place because charity is the only avenue these people have for getting help. Fake feel-good stories. Auzy says that article is fundamentally a gun advertisement and, indeed, the headline names a specific model of gun; it could have just said "rifles" but instead it name-drops a Colt product.

Does that prove the article is being deceptive, that you are being deceptive? No. Again, I'm not here to have that argument. What I want to point out is that it's also not at all an unreasonable takeaway to believe those things because, if it was deception on either or both fronts, this is what that would look like.

You should be choosy about what you share, thoughtful about why you're sharing it and what your feelings about it are, thoughtful about what it means about you that you're sharing it. Otherwise, you're just another unwitting mouthpiece for the raw machinations of capitalism.

Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?

Same as during a non-incumbent primary. The person who won the most recent nomination tends to have an outsized voice in the selection of party officials (because it's their pledged delegates who vote on all the other stuff). Yes, that means Biden-affiliated insiders had an inside track in 2020, but that's also true of Clinton allies in 2016, Obama allies in 2012, Obama allies in 2008, and Kerry allies in 2004.

More than a year ago, the DNC adopted new rules—including a primary calendar that ignored state law in Iowa and New Hampshire and eliminated any primary debates—designed to ensure that Biden’s coronation would proceed untroubled by opposition from any credible Democrat.

Which of those changes in the rules do you think were designed to benefit Biden specifically? De-emphasizing the role of Iowa and New Hampshire? There's been people clamoring for that for decades, within the party.

There's basically no set of rules that will ever create a credible challenge to an incumbent who wants to run for reelection. It's a popularity problem, not a structural problem.