> I have to yet to see even a single fact to back up your claim.
Here's the first result from a Google search I just did: https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us...
> If someone is going to spread disinformation and not present any facts, then I am going to post a sourced rebuttal.
I don't see any sourced rebuttal.
> instead of undermining the voters
I didn't undermine any voters. I made no claims about any voters. I commented only on the targeting, and that the targets hadn't consented to their data being accessed.
> blaming the results on some ludicrous notion of a bogeyman.
A calmer rhetoric would be more productive to discourse. Targeted advertising is not a "bogeyman". Stolen data and privacy concerns are not bogeymen. That people put up lots of private info that can be used to accurately profile them is a fact. That ads can be effective has been proven from the time ads were invented, and that targeted ads can be even more effective — especially in a political context — has also been studied and concluded lots of times. See [1] and [2].
Frankly, now that you've brought up backing of claims, I'm a bit discouraged to have to defend stuff like this against clearly biased political rhetoric.
1: http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019022...
2: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/a...