There is a distinction between the two. You're correct. In the report, it indicates the state media news sites that had the content on them. When we're looking for disinformation campaigns, what you would typically see or what we've seen could start with a news site that may have affiliations with the government. In that case, it did.
What you're watching for is how that's interacting with other accounts. Is there coordination, for example, of timing and content? That's when you start—I've spoken to the committee about this before—to look for that artificial amplification of content to try to make it sound louder and to try to make it look like a more natural conversation.
At that time, we were able to see certain accounts and news sites that were state-affiliated, but we could not see a corollary with other accounts that were putting up similar content. We couldn't find that linkage.
What I am trying to clarify is that, yes, at times, you can see state-affiliated news sites that have information on them, but if they're not linked and trying to amplify in a coordinated attempt to have inauthentic amplification, that's where we are not able to make the link. That was very different in the more recent situation.