Like I mentioned, certain conspiracies are realistic. Personally, I wouldn't even call them conspiracy theories. Some have called it deep vs shallow etc, but I agree all of this shouldn't be generalised. Snowden's reveals were not conspiracies at all - it's all there in the Patriot Act. It's not even illegal. I'd just call it confirming something, that while dubious, was entirely expected.

You'll notice Nye focuses on conspiracy theories which have overwhelming evidence against their viability. I guess he has a similar definition to mine. He doesn't mention stuff like Russians manipulating the US elections, which is entirely realistic. But again, I see your point, and I'd like to see different terms too. One for people clinging on to beliefs that are thoroughly invalidated by overwhelming evidence, and two for people who are skeptical about certain things but that may actually be realistic and reasonable just pending evidence.