Leading question and a wrong conclusion. Without bothering to define a conspiracy and what it means to "reveal" it. I would argue that one can quickly judge a conspiracy by a mood and culture carried by an average individual within his/her cluster of assumptions about the world. Just talking to people one-on-one or in private setting one quickly learns the "unspoken" rules of how things actually run (and that is conspiracy).<p>Of cause, these "conspiracies" are kitchen-table talks and insider talks (just think of your own organization how you see it operates from the inside and how it presents itself to the outside. This falls within conspiracy realm in a degree, and it is by far the most trivial example). Another example is that everyone knew about data collections of NSA for decades in the "conspiratorial" circles (e.g Echoleon project predates digital collection .. check that). That Government run psy-ops on its own citizens and routinely test communication pathways by releasing false data/information ... that is just of the utmost basics (even corporations make such operations routinely, at least those with political ties).<p>A different story is to ultimately pin someone explicitly by concrete traceable data/documents. Of cause, by design it is not possible without an insider job (whistleblower). And (long lost art) investigative journalism still relied on the topic to investigate from individuals "having conspiracy theory".<p>Needless to say, the conclusion of the article is in my view wrong, categorically. Now, of cause, there are lot of "conspiracies" out there that defy even physical reality, but that never enters "mood" and "culture" of populace (these are fringe individuals).<p>In fact, there is a bureaucratic theory which puts conspiracies into natural laws of function of institutions. State has to present itself to the citizens as an opaque process (and as you get closer it is on need-to-know-basis). It is security (of a state institution, ultimately few elite individuals)) by obscurity.