Steffen H. receives dozens of likes, kisses, and laughter for his Facebook commentary in a news bulletin on the death of banker and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. "If you were surprised by Epstein's suicide, what do you think, how surprised he was." So what comes in these times and such networks. And when Thomas K. adds that the Trumps and Clintons may well have known of his suicide before Epstein, the perfect conspiratorial dialogue is lacking in reference to the unbelievability of unforeseeable events. The Thomas K. delivers even then: "There are coincidences ..." And always the cameras are broken, writes another user. Wink, wink.

The corpse is still barely cold, as already grows in the network already the certainties:

1. The suicide was not one.

2. The backers of the deed are unquestionably known (and powerful).

3. Everything else is cover-up attempts (powerful backers).

Jeffrey Epstein is dead. We know that. Otherwise we do not even know so much at the present time. Apart from the fact that on the Internet, the conspiracy theorists overhear. Steffen H. and Thomas K. are not alone. It is seething.

In Epstein's death, the conspiracy theoretic potential of worldwide networking manifests itself for the umpteenth time. We observe a constantly recurring process:

1. An event X finds place.

2. Event X is publicized through media coverage.

3. Supposedly critical reality takers put on their Sherlock Holmes hats in an act of simultaneous disbelief and murmur in a chorus: "Wait a minute! That's not true!" They lie to us! Here, also the author of this text: He writes death, not suicide! he???"

Statements such as those of Steffen H. and Thomas K. are no less a symptom of the erosion of credibility in the digital age. The lie press screaming necks in this country, every few days "Fake News!" twitteringUS president there. They are all united in their "Stop! Stop! Things are quite different than they seem!" - mentality. They do not lack self-awareness or self-assurance. Not at all. Instead, they lack evidence for their claims. That everything in truth is quite different, they prove only about (apparent) plausibilities.

Of course that is outrageous! Anyone who makes a statement in the room, must deliver. Arguments. Supporting documents. Proofs. That's how it used to be. Today, in the epoch of the antifactic, documents and evidence are not considered devalued (that would be bad enough), no, they are often simply schnurzpiepegal.You do not need them in the discourse. The conspirator, who calls himself a "seeker of truth" or "critical mind," is in the comfortable position of creating an aha-or even a yes-clear-effect on his fellow human beings only through the assumption of bad intentions. In any case, with those people who also want to be critical minds , but whistle for the sincere (and laborious) practices of science, research, or investment journalism.