No, that says there was interference, not what they did to counter it. It alleges that a number of Telegram accounts were part of an influence campaign but not how they convinced enough of the influenced to not vote fash again.
Was it as easy as banning a bunch of social media trolls?
The rejected one was a first round with a bunch candidates, if it wasn’t rejected they still would have a second round with two highest scoring candidates competing. But I don’t know the answer to your question.
The article has a link that answers your question.
No, that says there was interference, not what they did to counter it. It alleges that a number of Telegram accounts were part of an influence campaign but not how they convinced enough of the influenced to not vote fash again.
Was it as easy as banning a bunch of social media trolls?
The rejected one was a first round with a bunch candidates, if it wasn’t rejected they still would have a second round with two highest scoring candidates competing. But I don’t know the answer to your question.