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

Encyclopedia of Opinion

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‹2 of 4›: Voter suppression is a myth

Social media is not being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states. Voter suppression is a myth designed to worry voters about the integrity of the US election.

The argument

It is easier than ever before to register to vote, and to vote in the US. The term "voter suppression" was made up to defame legal activities such as voter ID laws and suggest that they are illegal. The Democratic administration's concerns regarding voter suppression are manufactured by them, and then amplified by the press. Such concerns are invented to criticise the integrity of American presidential elections. Sore losers may use the term voter suppression to detract from their own loss and suggest that it could only have been caused by conspiracy.

Premises

[P1]Registering and voting in the US is easier than ever, and laws like voter ID are legal and legitimate. [P2] The concept of 'voter suppression' is a manufactured narrative pushed by partisans and amplified by the press to question election integrity. [P3] If voter suppression itself is a myth, then claims of social media being used to suppress disenfranchised voters in swing states have no real target. [C] Therefore, social media is not being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states.

Counter-arguments

Voter suppression is a very real issue, particularly in light of the US 2020 elections. Agents are using various techniques involving the assimilation of disinformation to target certain disenfranchised groups of the population and intimidate them into not showing up to vote.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Ease in aggregate and ease for particular voters are different claims. Courts have struck down or narrowed measures on findings that they burdened specific groups, and legality is not the point at issue — a rule can be lawful and still raise the cost of voting for someone without a qualifying ID, a nearby polling place, or time off work. [Rejecting P2] Treating the term as one party's invention does not engage the conduct it names — roll purges, polling-place closures, long queues, and misinformation about deadlines and voting methods. The premise offers no account of that record beyond attributing motive to the people who describe it. [Rejecting P3] The conditional is not needed. Whether social media is being used to target disenfranchised voters is a question about what is circulated and to whom, which can be examined directly; it does not wait on the general dispute about suppression, and evidence of targeted disinformation would itself tell against the premise it is made to depend on.