Public discourse on the Epstein files often conflates involvement levels. It is critical to differentiate between those who committed crimes, those showing poor judgment by associating with a known predator, and those merely present without ill intent. Each tier demands a distinct societal response, from prosecution to public scrutiny to nuance.

In complex scandals, parsing individuals into distinct groups—active criminals, morally compromised associates, and unwitting attendees—is crucial. Conflating everyone prevents targeted accountability for the worst offenders while unfairly punishing those on the periphery.

Dumping raw investigative files, like the Epstein documents, for public interpretation undermines law enforcement's credibility. The proper output of an investigation should be indictments, not media fodder. This approach turns serious crimes into partisan spectacles, ultimately benefiting the perpetrators by diluting the focus on criminal liability.

Even when transparency is mandated, there are levers to control the narrative. The allegation regarding the Epstein files is that they will be redacted to protect powerful figures, with "national security" used as a convenient and difficult-to-challenge justification for censorship.

Social media algorithms incentivize outrage, leading to the public takedown of individuals with tangential or minor connections to the Epstein case. This 'ring light virtue' dilutes focus from actual criminals who committed heinous acts, allowing them to escape justice while the public is distracted by online gossip and character assassinations.

The mass release of Epstein documents, without a trusted institution to filter them, creates a justice problem. Trivial details (like being on an invite list) are over-punished through public shaming, while truly criminal behavior gets lost in the noise, leading to a "mushed together" outcome.

An administration has no incentive to fully resolve a major public scandal because its unresolved nature makes it a perfect "red herring." It can be used repeatedly to distract the public and media from current policy failures or other damaging news, making perpetual ambiguity more politically useful than transparency.

The Department of Justice's strategy for the Epstein files mimics a Russian GRU propaganda technique: overwhelming the public with a mix of true and false information. This creates mass confusion, dilutes the impact of serious allegations, and ultimately leads to public fatigue, protecting powerful individuals from accountability.

The New York Times and other outlets are focusing on figures like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, while individuals with deeper ties to Epstein, like Reid Hoffman, receive minimal coverage. This suggests a political bias in reporting on the scandal, eroding trust in institutions.