Yeah, political views were impacted in the sense of "quickened". I agree that the evidence supports that these tactics have been used and documented elsewhere (

Yeah, political views were impacted in the sense of "quickened". I agree that the evidence supports that these tactics have been used and documented elsewhere (Ukraine being a great example) and the phenomenon of increasing destabilization seems to be progressively effective. That phenomenon is different than changing someones voting preference - all the studies we've cited (in the US specifically) discuss these tactics as "hardening" existing views, not changing them. I'm only trying to compartmentalize these two phenomenon so they can be talked about separately, because there certainly is a narrative out there that the election was illegitimate because of election interference from Russia, and none of the evidence supports that. In fact, the DNI report explicitly disavows that idea. It is pursuant to the goal of fomenting institutional destabilization to irresponsibly push that narrative or allow a conversation about Russian meddling to implicitly support that narrative. I'm not trying to minimize the concern we should have over a foreign government being an agent provocateur for civil disturbance. I'm just saying that it's contrary to the evidence to think that these actions swayed the election.