I don't think you read my comment very carefully, because I didn't say "huge effect" anywhere and I don't think I made any claims that could be construed as hyperbole. The only thing I said which expressed any magnitude at all was that Donald Trump was a huge user of the platform, which I think is pretty defensible.

It is hyperbole to claim Twitter is influential in this manner, which is to implicitly suggest that the 23% of Americans that claim to be Twitter users will swing an election because it would require significant amounts of those 23% of Twitter-using Americans to be bamboozled into changing their vote and then vote together en masse, which IMO is absurd, because they're not all of one party. It is hyperbole to suggest that Twitter is influencing non-Twitter users into changing their votes. It is even further hyperbole to suggest that Trump's Twitter use had any effect on the election other than to cause him to lose the popular vote by nearly 5%, more than twice the margin of his performance in the 2016 election.

Voters can be fooled, but the trick is not permanent, and they will not be doomed to believe foolish and false facts terminally. Maybe even some voters were fooled into voting based on false reports leading to lingering false beliefs. But to suggest there is some army of idiots swinging elections is ludicrous and frankly paranoid.

Liberals vote Democrat. Conservatives vote Republican. Even if any of them are fooled into believing false information, they do not change their votes. Anyone that crossed party lines did not do so on a whim. And moderates are skeptical and less likely to take false information seriously.

For what it's worth, I apologize for misrepresenting your statement, which I promise you was not due to malice and only due to my poor comprehension.