What's with the infighting here? Nothing about the post comes across as conspiracy theory level or reputation ruining. It makes me question the motives of those implying he's crazy, to be honest.
Post-quantum cryptography is essentially a full-employment program for elite academic public key cryptographers, which is largely what the "winning" PQC teams consist of. So, yeah, suggesting that one of those teams was compromised by an intelligence agency is "conspiracy theory level".
Nobody is denying the legitimacy of the suit itself. NIST is obligated to follow public records law, and public records law is important. Filippo's message, which we're all commenting on here, says that directly.
Has the general notion of "conspiracy theory" ever carried any positive value? It only seems to exist to discredit "doubters against the majority consensus" without substance. But I guess words like "crank" wouldn't even exist if there weren't many people like it, so it carries some "definitional" value.
Because they show total disregard for someones opinion (in a more formal way: "unlike you/them, i completely agree with the (apparent) majority consensus (which it also implies), these words probably don't belong into a serious discussion.
Our notion of "crank"/conspiracy theory is a logical consequence of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." When that evidence isn't provided all that remains is an exceptionally convoluted explanation, generally involving more parties than necessary, hence "conspiracy."
These words probably also tend to describe people who rather hold a belief in these theories, instead of treating them as statements without evidence (which both sides probably should, because there is no evidence against it).
On the other hand, discussing statements without evidence (even if they are not presented as beliefs), has some (opportunity?) cost, which the "theorists" are willing to pay
