The original assertion was about "none of [videos in a political context that could change the course of an election or lead to political violence] having trans

The original assertion was about "none of [videos in a political context that could change the course of an election or lead to political violence] having transpired". Of course a single example of a deepfake appearing in a political context is evidence of the contrary. As formulated, it isn't necessary for either election outcomes or political violence to be attributed to said fake videos, and I would say that demanding that kind of evidence is unreasonable (it's a common denialist tactic to require an absurd level of evidence). So why exactly are those not evidence of the contrary according to you?