Even as someone who writes about the DNC hack and will write more about it, I'm more convinced by @YBenkler (et. al) argument that Russian hacking was *not* decisive in the election outcome. Story here washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/1… and details about book in the article.
It's significant for other reasons tho. But so glad that there is more solid research after years of people debating it. Still room for debate but at least we can do so via a more solid bed of facts.
But because a New Yorker piece was written claiming it was decisive, it will be hard to change the narrative.... (unless other forces or factors come into play)
Also this debate, which is also one that @ggreenwald and James Risen from the Intercept have sharply disagreed on, mirror the difficulty of trying to understand the impact of disinfo... It's really quite hard.
I find this particularly depressing.
