I think this comes down to how "Russian agent" is qualified. At least in terms of Twitter's search it counted anybody using Russian characters, that had ever lo

I think this comes down to how "Russian agent" is qualified. At least in terms of Twitter's search it counted anybody using Russian characters, that had ever logged in from a Russian IP, or had transactions from a Russian bank. There's two absurdities here - first how many Americans would be counted, by a similar metric, as being "American agents" against countless other nations? Did you talk about Brexit from a US IP? You're an "American agent" trying to interfere with the UK's election and national sovereignty! Perhaps the most interesting part is while this qualification qualifies countless unaffiliated individuals as "national agents", it likely all but entirely excludes anybody who actually is a national agent. If I'm a government engaged in a conspiracy to target another nation, you know the most basic things I'm not going to do? There's this completely absurd notion in the media that Russians are some sort of collective of super-hackers and media masters capable of shaking nations and changing elections with a negligible subpercent fraction of total impressions -- yet apparently they haven't yet learned how to use fancy software like TOR, forget to not write in Cyrillic, and also connected their accounts to Russian banks? I think this is a major problem with media in general. In the US many people do not want to believe that Americans voted how they did. And so when an explanation comes along that helps them confirm this bias, critical thinking is completely thrown out the window. Of course this problem obviously is not relegated to just this issue, but the repetitive banality of this particular one is disturbing. It casts a rather negative shadow over most of the media.