These different typologies illustrate Damstra et al.’s (2021) point that the contested conceptual frameworks and definitions have, in their own right, been one of the major areas of focus in the emerging research field of disinformation studies. Since the purpose of this study is not to enter further into conceptual debates, but to descriptively map responses to information disorder in the Global South, a pragmatic approach to conceptualization has been followed. This study therefore does not adopt one particular conceptual framework or typology, but draws from the existing literature in ways that support the study’s aims. Although the term “information disorder” is used in this study as the overarching term to describe the destabilization of the public sphere, and “disinformation” as a general term to denote particular manifestations of harmful information, some terminological flexibility was retained. The different regional reports may therefore show a preference for terms that are dominant in the particular region. As the study’s main focus is on the types of responses and actors working to counter information disorder and to contribute to democratic, participatory, and equitable public spheres in the Global South, it further draws on the conceptualization of responses outlined by Bontcheva and Posetti (2020), although not following any particular framework in a programmatic way. Central to the study’s rationale is the need to broaden the field of information disorder studies beyond its current preoccupation with experiences and perspectives from the Global North, which are often presumed to have universal relevance. The recent sharp rise in interest in information disorder started to peak around the 2016 US election campaign. It was during this campaign that concerns around false news, foreign influence operations—including fears about Russian election interference, following this country’s previous disinformation campaign in the Ukraine—and the weaponizing of the term “fake news” (Carlson 2020; Farhall et al. 2019; Tandoc, Jenkins, and Craft 2019) became topics of widespread concern. Despite this strong growth in information disorder as an area of scholarly and popular interest, the majority of research still views the phenomenon from vantage points in the Global North. As Madrid-Morales and Wasserman (2022) show, of all the articles on the topic of disinformation/misinformation/fake news published in academic journals between 2000 and 2020, the vast majority refer to countries or regions in the Global North. It is clear that academic research on information disorder has so I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH far “failed to include adequate diversity on matters of geography, culture, and language as well as race, class, and gender” (Lewis and Molyneux 2018, 19). The focus on the USA means that the field currently lacks geographical, Central to the study’s rationale cultural, linguistic, and geopolitical diversity (Lewis and Molyneux is the need to broaden the 2018, 19). This is despite countries field of information disorder in the Global South having had to studies beyond its current deal with information disorder long preoccupation with experiences before its recent rise as a scholarly and perspectives from the Global and journalistic preoccupation. North, which are often presumed The factors feeding into the crisis of disinformation in the North to have universal relevance. are often much more vividly recognizable in the South. Research into information disorder in the Global South can therefore also hold lessons for how to understand the phenomenon elsewhere, and help us design more contextually informed ways to combat it. 1.1 INFORMATION DISORDER, MEDIA DEVELOPMENT, AND SOCIAL CHANGE The global manifestation of information disorder has presented challenges concerning how to think about media development and social change in the Global South. Already prior to the rise of information disorder as a point of scholarly focus, the field was divided between cyber-optimists and cyber-pessimists, or techno-utopians and technodystopians, who debated the impact of digital technologies on societies. In the field of media development, optimism often seemed to dominate. Those celebrating the potential of mobile and social media for social change often take their cue from the Arab Spring protests, which have been referred to popularly as a “social media revolution,” or from campaigns such #BringBackOurGirls, #Kony2012, #MeToo, and #FeesMustFall, to indicate how social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, or WhatsApp can provide activists with the means to mobilize, organize, and construct group identities. Social media have also made it possible to enlist the participation of citizens in democratic debate, in the co-production of news discourses, and in the monitoring of political power or election violence. On the other hand, there are also those who have called into question this potential of social media to support constructive social change in the Global South. The severe inequalities in access to digital and online media in these regions have often been pointed out as a factor that should dampen Introduction – 1 0