this is a _very_ poor article. it has grammatical errors, clunky writing, inconsistent info, and no public sources except a tweet. hopefully this was machine ge

this is a _very_ poor article. it has grammatical errors, clunky writing, inconsistent info, and no public sources except a tweet. hopefully this was machine generated, because if people tried to pass this as journalism they should be fired. the phrase "one of the people" is used 4 times in 5.5 paragraphs. "The hacking involved multiple incidents." "The tweet was in part meant to address the hacking, which involved multiple incidents." these two sentences are back-to-back. >The hack involved overloading the HHS servers with millions of hits over several hours. how does this lead to a distribution of fake information? technically, this article does not make sense. >The attack appears to have been intended to slow the agency’s systems down, but didn’t do so in any meaningful way, said the people, who asked for anonymity to discuss an incident that was not public. this is also not congruous with the hack leading to the release of false information, and is grammatically incorrect.