Republicans were the party in power

That's not actually true. The Twitter Files releases covers part of the Trump as well as Biden admins, so the party presently in power has definitely been involved, some would argue much moreso - remember that the whole "Disinformation Governance Board" they tried to create was a part of this wider initiative.

You're prepared to conclude that every example in the Twitter files of government suppression of private political speech is either a) revenge porn, b) disinformation or c) hate speech?

Have you actually read the Twitter files? They seem to contain copious examples that fit into none of the categories you've defined.

Open systems (like SMS, RCS, email, XMPP) will always be more vulnerable to spam than closed

That's just not true, and a hilarious thing to hear from the Slashdot audience! Open does not mean insecure. An open system that's spam resistant is possible to design.

Since when is "most people" what is actually reality?

The definitions of words are determined by consensus, since they aren't objective. The (broad, deep, lengthy) consensus is that opinion journalists are, indeed, journalists.

The list of journalism professors is again looking at a symptom and not the cause, why would so many journalism professors be left wing when 50% of the country is conservative?

Discrimination.

Rarified commodities if there ever were any. Cheers my friend, here's hoping it rubs off on me a bit! :)

Call me when you are willing to steel man the Twitter files evidence, rather than recycling a lame and disinformational talking point that falsely implies the Twitter files were about âoerevenge pornâ or âoeHunter dick picsâ, when the reality is they covered everything from doctors being silenced on COVID to regular joes being silenced for telling jokes.

The government investigating itself for its collusion with big tech to suppress speech on the internet doesn't sound like the kind of story Slashdot covers...? Your user ID would indicate that you remember things like the CDA blackout, which Slashdot participated in... huh?

RCS is simply trying to be an upgraded SMS

It doesn't upgrade spam resistance, which is one of the main flaws of SMS.

Except it never happened.

The Twitter Files have revealed that various government agencies and individual politicians were using the FBI's official national security coordination channels to pressure social media companies to limit the speech of American citizens engaged in protected speech activities. All of this was taking place without any due process.

That, to me, is worrisome. Beyond worrisome. It constitutes a direct violation of Constitutional speech protections.

...but big tech colluding with a political party in power to suppress or manipulate the public discourse seems like a bad thing.

SMS was also designed without a requirement to block spam. Email as well. Phone calls.

Sure, but RCS wasn't designed decades ago before the problem emerged.

Calm down, there, Vaush.

>ingestion track

Ah yes, fellow human! I too enjoy making utilization of my ingestion track.

Sorry, I just can't get past every single story about Idaho potatoes or Wall Street being framed in the context of intersectional dogma. I'm not entertained by clowns.

CNN used to be way left of center back when Ted Turner was still running things, but it hasn't been for a couple of decades. In fact, except for MSNBC, the rest of the outlets on your list are just *barely* left of center, if at all.

You'd consider NPR "just *barely* left of center"? Wow!

Things are newsworthy if they are timely, have some significant public interest, are unusual or interesting, etc. Biden's son's laptop is none of those things

Absolute incontrovertible proof of the son of the current President smoking crack, patronizing Russian mob hookers, taking bribes from eastern European governments, etc. is a story of significant public interest, and there is no arguing this point while maintaining any credibility whatsoever. Notably, though, this is almost *verbatim* the excuse that NPR's managing editor used to explain why they refused - and still refuse - to cover the story.