to such information, and strengthen freedom of expression across the Global South. Moreover, these insights can also hold lessons for similar work to counter information disorder on a global level. There is widespread concern that we are currently experiencing a global information disorder characterized by the large-scale contamination of the public sphere with rumors, hate speech, dangerous conspiracy theories, harmful misunderstandings, and orchestrated campaigns of deception. This disorder is often seen as a confluence of a rapidly changing media ecology and an increasingly fractious, populist, and decentered political environment (Tumber and Waisbord 2021, 1). Global concerns about false and misleading information, especially on social media and messaging platforms, keep growing (Newman 2021). The “infodemic” of false, misleading, or harmful information related to the Covid-19 pandemic (WHO 2021) has accelerated these concerns and garnered considerable research attention. There has been a strong growth in concern about the situation in popular discourse. Media users report the perceived increase in exposure to “fake news” as a key reason for lower levels of trust in news media (Knight Foundation 2018). Global apprehension about false and misleading information continues to rise, with particular concerns about the widespread popularity of messaging apps in the Global South (Newman 2021). While critical theory has historically highlighted the link that always exists between truth claims and power relations, the contemporary global landscape of information disorder tends to eschew social agreements on methods and facts. Instead of transparent, agonistic public debate and scientific process to support truth claims, the “post-truth” populist public sphere tends to draw on binary political identities for support (Tumber and Waisbord 2021, 21). The manifestation of information disorder around the world has given rise to a burgeoning research area, which includes analysis of issues ranging from election manipulation, populist politics, and influThe manifestation of ence operations, to questions of information disorder around media trust and implications for the world has given rise to a research area. journalism practice, as well as the burgeoning Covid-19 infodemic. As a research area, information disorder studies bears some of the characteristics of an evolving subfield of the broader field of communication and media studies (as well as cognate areas like political science and sociology). As a result, its basic reference points are still being established: its conceptual frameworks are still contested, and its rapidly growing corpus of literature still draws on a range of theoretical frameworks (including but not limited to propaganda, rhetoric, political communication, journalism studies, and audience studies) and the establishment of new journals, special issues, and handbooks devoted to the topic. INFORMATION DISORDER One of the most influential typologies for the concept of “information disorder” comes from Wardle and Derakshan (2017). Their conceptual framework for examining information disorder identifies three types of information which, taken together, constitute the overall disorder. These information types are distinguished on the basis of their degree of harm and falseness, as well as on the assumed intention of the sender. These elements are referred to as misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. (Wardle and Derakshan 2017, 5, 20): ! • Misinformation is when false information is shared, but no harm is intended. • Disinformation is when false information is knowingly shared to cause harm. ? • Malinformation is when genuine information is shared to cause harm, often by moving information designed to stay private into the public sphere. Such information might be based on reality, but it is used to inflict harm on a person, organization, or country (e.g. email leaks, online harassment, and hate speech). I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH Introduction – 0 8