Most of the thirty-two actors using the monitoring and fact-checking response are media houses or independent fact-checking organizations working in the public interest. They primarily target mis- and disinformation on online platforms, and most are signatories to the standards of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and other local media councils. This means they have strict correction policies which require them to publicly account for any errors in the fact-checking process. Other actors include Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), which specifically fact checks information related to the LGBTQI+ community in Uganda and abroad. Umati in Kenya was a once-off fact-checking response (part of a research project) which significantly informed subsequent research on information disorder in East Africa. Eight of the actors do in-depth investigations to provide insight into the content of misor disinformation that is in circulation. Investigative responses are distinct from fact checking in that they provide foundational information about the false content with the intention of facilitating further action. For example, Africa Check, whose primary response is monitoring, used investigation as a secondary response at the time this study was carried out; this inspired the “What’s Crap on WhatsApp?” initiative (a micro-podcast that debunks fake news). Organizations such as AFP Fact Check use the reverse search method on Google and other tools to determine where online content originated and which communities are affected by untrue information. AFP Fact Check is also part of Facebook’s third-party fact-checking program, which uses insights from partners to make further investments to support the larger fact-checking ecosystem (Facebook 2021). Although there are fewer organizations doing investigative work as a primary response, it does appear that fact-checking methodologies are maturing into the realm of these deeper investigative efforts. This level of analysis is critical to unearthing the sources, drivers, and impacts of information disorder, which could give actors stronger ammunition to get policymakers in particular to pay attention to the dangers of ongoing mis- and disinformation trends. I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH RESPONSES TARGETING PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF INFORMATION This response aims to alter the social and legal environment that governs and shapes the behavior of information producers and distributors. It includes national and international campaigns that focus on constructing counter-narratives, regulatory interventions, and responses specifically targeting mis- and disinformation during elections. Six initiatives make use of campaigns that aim to make available factual, reliable information from credible sources. Campaigns are usually responsive to circumstances, and it is no surprise that several of the campaigns identified specifically focused on Covid-19-related information. The majority of actors deploying this response are founded or run collaboratively by local and international organizations such as UN agencies. Among the six initiatives using a legislative/ policy response is Amnesty International and Lawyers Hub Kenya. Amnesty International’s Freedom of Expression program advocates against repressive laws threatening freedom of expression. The program combines advocacy with investigative journalism by targeting instances where speech/ expressive rights or media freedom is threatened by states. These stories are published on an online repository. Lawyers Hub Kenya provides consultations on legislation related to ICT in Kenya. There are four initiatives which use electoral engagements. Africa Check and the CDD, for example, have developed online trackers which monitor whether politicians fulfill promises made during election periods. The trackers aim to counter deceptive electioneering tactics employed by politicians to gain votes. Regions covered are West Africa (with responses in French) and Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya (in English). Digital Africa Research Lab also provides election monitoring support in addition to fact-checking activities. RESPONSES AIMED AT PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION MECHANISMS This category focuses on the process of producing and distributing mis- or disinformation. Two response types have been identified. The first is technical/algorithmic, and it makes use of algorithms (natural language processing) and/or artificial intelligence (AI) technology to detect misor disinformation. The second is curatorial, and it focuses on editorial and content policy as well as strengthening community standards. The actors who were found to use this type of response did so as a secondary activity only. Sub -Saharan Africa – 1 46