There's a big difference between "the US government likes to do this sort of thing" and "here's evidence of something specific they did recently, that Twitter h

There's a big difference between "the US government likes to do this sort of thing" and "here's evidence of something specific they did recently, that Twitter had publicly denied". If you're already starting with the assumption that social media is riddled with ("ex") intelligence agents doing the govt.'s bidding, and cooperating with (in this case pharma) companies to help their PR and profit, then yes, there was little that was new. But if you're not, or if you want to convince someone that stubbornly insists this is all a "debunked conspiracy theory of which there is no evidence", then having, you know, actual evidence, is a big deal, not a nothing-burger. You speak of well informed citizens - but how did they in the first place come to believe things such as those revealed in the Twitter files happen? By the exact same sort of revelations in the past. And there's always someone that will claim "that was long ago, times have changed, we don't do those kind of things anymore". And for some things, that is true. So it's important to periodically re-open people's eyes.