You’re taking two things that are known to be true — low black turnout and Russia targeting black voters on Facebook — and inferring a spurious causation between the two. Just because Russia attempted to influence the election doesn’t mean their efforts were effective.

For example, Reddit uncovered hundreds of accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency but almost none of them had positive karma, meaning people weren’t positively interacting with them and the threads they created most likely didn’t reach many people.

Maybe they were more successful on Facebook but it’s doubtful. There are other much more plausible explanations for low black turnout, some of which you mention, like mass voter suppression.

But also the benchmark you use for comparison is Obama. Of course an unpopular white candidate isn’t going to inspire black turnout the same way a charismatic black candidate did — Russians or no.

There are also legitimate reasons why black voters might not like Clinton in particular, such as her history of demonizing black youth as “superpredators” or the dirty, dog whistle-laden campaign she ran against Obama in 2008, ie leaking the photos of him in Somali garb to Drudge and having her staffers constantly bring up his drug use in his youth.

Most of what the Russians did involved spreading fake news, which was mostly ineffective against liberals. The only tactic that they could have pursued that would have worked would be to amplify the aforementioned legitimate grievances. I would argue that giving voice to marginalized perspectives on the left is a good thing regardless (unless you are a moderate)

Which brings me to my last point. All this “Russian bots” mess is a way for white moderate liberal to box out and delegitimize black voices that don’t conform to their incrementalist line. It’s a useful narrative for protecting the status quo. I don’t care too much for Tulsi but I was glad that she was in the debates to raise questions about Kamala’s record as DA.