I think for many people when they come to understanding bitcoin at a deeper level it breaks the illusion that mainstream institutions are benevolent.

Reconstructing your perception of "what is money" and learning about the decoupling from the Gold Standard, seignorage, and Cantillon effect reshape a worldview of the current problems we see today in society. As technology improves one would think that the standard of living should as well however these economic gains are antithetical to an inflationary monetary system and are consolidated to the 1% of the 1% via printing to offset the deflationary impact of technology.

While I agree its dumb to automatically take the opposite side of any MSM position on a case by case basis there is substance to other criticisms of institutions and much of it is incentive driven that eventually can be traced to who controls the money.

Big Pharmacy - lobby governments, bribe officials, capture regulators. Its somewhat intuitive to question the efficacy and tradeoffs of certain medications or vaccines when there is so much profit incentive to maximize shareholder value for Pfizer, Moderna, etc. Likewise there is real benefits to certain biotechnologies and medicines overtime so again I think critiques here can be done on a case by case position but medicine does have side effects and in many cases a person can avoid relying on it with a combo of exercise, diet and having mindful habits.

Climate change politics - again nuance is required here. Many climate change policies are inherently anti-human and seek to control and penalize people for just existing. The climate changes over time regardless of human impact. Pretending that a carbon tax is going to stop bad weather is aikin to the Aztecs and ancient civilizations doing a human sacrifice to get a good harvest. Imo the best way of "combatting" any of the extreme weather events comes down to humans being able to harness more energy. I agree that we probably don't want to be doubling down on coal or anything but its impossible to make a intellectually honest argument that we don't need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Increase the diversity of energy systems, desalination, carbon capture and other technologies will combat the underlying impact that "The Universe is hostile to human existence" and more entropy over time is literally a law of physics. The purpose of human existence is to fight back against this entropy via harnessing energy. Also there are many moral and ethical considerations to make as the developing world begins to use fossil fuels to improve their lives. Accounting for carbon and thinking that will solve everything is the most fiat diseased argument that sets up to be married perfectly to a CBDC. (I also think that micro plastics posie a larger environmental issue that carbon but its way easier to simplify and account for emissions than to calculate the impact of fiat based consumer economics degraging into the food supply)

In short as a TLDR: I agree that blindlessly agreeing with all conspiracy theories is dumb. However when I hear MSM take a position on a topic I am automatically inclined to believe the opposite because of the poor track record and reliance on monetary bribery they have. "Do your own research" and critical thinking are important skills to have. Also "where there is smoke, there's probably fire" - epstein and so many other conspiracies have ended up being correct its hard to have confidence in institutions until society is able to return to Scientific debate without fiat tainting the incentives of science and the press.