No evidence of a relationship between exposure to Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in voting behavior

From Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency Foreign Influence Campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US Election and Its Relationship to Attitudes and Voting Behavior by Gregory Eady, et al.  From the Abstract.

There is widespread concern that foreign actors are using social media to interfere in elections worldwide. Yet data have been unavailable to investigate links between exposure to foreign influence campaigns and political behavior. Using longitudinal survey data from US respondents linked to their Twitter feeds, we quantify the relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and attitudes and voting behavior in the 2016 US election. We demonstrate, first, that exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior. The results have implications for understanding the limits of election interference campaigns on social media.

It was an article of faith among the mainstream media both that Trump colluded with Russians to steal the 2016 election and that part of that collusion involved Russian trolling of social media to influence outcomes.  

As I noted at that time, there was virtually no evidence to support the belief system.  It was a set of convictions floating free form.  For those of us involved in commerce, advertising, branding, social media, and technology, there were many doubts as to the veracity of the mainstream media construct.  But that was what they believed and that was how they were reporting.  

The evidence supporting that the mainstream media narrative was at best wrong and at worst partisan propaganda has been trickling out in the years since.  It is now pretty clear that the Russians were doing nothing more than they are always doing and that the effect was vestigial.  

This new report adds to that growing body of evidence.  It only addresses Twitter as a social media platform but it is by academics (a left leaning institution) and New York academics at that (also deep blue).  If there was something to be found, they would find it.  But just as with the J6 final report and the Trump tax release, there is nothing there.  

I wonder whether, when Shakespeare wrote Much Ado About Nothing, he could have had any inkling just how pertinent, adaptable and longstanding his title would be?