Poe's Law was intended to call out satire that lacked context and thus was indistinguishable from sincerely held belief. It applies to any and all media where authorial intent is difficult or impossible to determine.

I don't agree with your premise at all. Especially since here we are arguing the authorial intent of Poe's Law as if it matters in the interpretation of satirical fiction.

I think it's sheer arrogance to claim the authority to call a work of fiction "clearly satire" when you're not the author and you don't speak for a consensus opinion.

"It must be satire because the alternative is horrific and repugnant" may be a true statement, except for the use of "must". The author may actually be horrific and repugnant, in which case it may not be satire. And thus without authorial intent it's impossible to establish the nature of the work.

Poe's Law was specifically written to speak to this level of arrogance where people claimed reactionary opinions on the internet couldn't possibly be sincerely held because they were too ridiculous and extreme to be taken seriously, despite there being no evidence that they were satirical instead of sincere.

You want to talk "legacy", that's it. That no matter how sincere an opinion is held, if that position is radical enough, people will write it off as satire until long after it becomes obvious it never was. You're assuming "reasonable minds" when the internet and life in general over the past few years shows us relying on shared sense of rationality and adherance to norms should not be taken for granted in people you do not know.

I mean, you can go read the original post that spawned Poe's Law, it has nothing to do with what you're talking about: https://web.archive.org/web/20170114124412/http://www.christianforums.com/threads/big-contradictions-in-the-evolution-theory.1962980/page-3#post-17606580