Is social media being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states?

The majority of Americans were not exposed to fake news during the 2016 election

Question: Is social media being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states?
Position‹2 of 2: No, social media is not being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states
Argument‹3 of 4›: The majority of Americans were not exposed to fake news during the 2016 election

Social media is not being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states. The use of fake news in politics is overstated and the majority of Americans were not actually exposed to disinformation during the 2016 presidential election.

The argument

A study of more than 16,000 Twitter users found that only a small fraction of fake news spread during the 2016 presidential election. Only a small number saw the majority of misinformation, and those that saw it were typically older and politically conservative. Therefore the effect of fake news, and in particular its effect on swing states may have been less pervasive on social media during the election than originally thought.

Premises

[P1]A study of over 16,000 Twitter users found that only a small fraction of fake news circulated during the 2016 election, with most of it seen by a small, older, conservative subset. [P2] If misinformation reached only a narrow demographic slice, then it could not have broadly targeted disenfranchised voters across swing states. [C] Therefore, social media was not meaningfully used to target the disenfranchised in swing states.

Counter-arguments

Even a small amount of fake news could have an impact on the political process and therefore on the US presidential election.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] One platform's users are not the electorate, and a study of this kind measures sharing of content from a defined list of sources. It cannot see material circulated through private messaging, closed groups or paid advertising — which is exactly where targeting of the alleged kind would be expected to happen. [Rejecting P2] Narrow reach is compatible with decisive effect. Targeting means concentration by design, so a small, specific audience in a handful of states is what the opposing position describes rather than evidence against it — and one election is a thin basis for a claim about a continuing practice.