I mean, if you find privately owned social media companies dominant in the field of journalism and breaking news co-opted by the state in the form of agencies l

I mean, if you find privately owned social media companies dominant in the field of journalism and breaking news co-opted by the state in the form of agencies like FBI and CIA in the wholesale manipulation of public information "no big deal" then ... you're welcome to your views, I guess. It should be unsurprising to anyone properly aware of the facts and context that others do find it to be noteworthy, however. > we've seen much more harrowing releases with much less proportional reactions (see: Snowden, Wikileaks, et. al) Not sure what you intend by "proportional" here ('proportionate'?) - but Snowden, for example (avowedly a much more significant story) received weeks of headlines and coverage here in UK. Of course, much of that coverage was of the form: "Not true -> Maybe somewhat true; Snowden is a traitor -> True but no big deal, security trumps legality -> True, but so what, we already knew all that." And we did know a lot of that - see Duncan Campbell's reporting on Echelon, for example, as early as 1988! - but detail and documentary evidence was nonetheless important and worth publishing.