Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Twitter Election Interference as it Bans Sargon/Robinson Campaign Handles" video.

If "influence" == "interference", then there should be no advertisements, programs, or discussion of candidates and issues--not to mention, bumper stickers and lawn signs. No. Influence is proper, as long as it's not illegal. You can't influence a person to vote by paying them--illegal. But you can, and should, attempt to persuade through reason. So much of the discussion environment has been polluted by these kinds of lazy equivalency (i.e. influence is not the same as interference), to the point where people are using the same words in the same context to mean different things.
1