on the theme, dealing with conceptual aspects, the strategies adopted by those who spread disinformation, and the debate about responses to the issue (Martins 2020). Some organizations with more resources have managed to move towards audience opinion surveys. Avaaz, in partnership with public opinion institutes, has conducted surveys to identify behavior associated with receiving false content and the perceptions around false content. Another common practice among the analyzed actors is the elaboration of technical reports on specific aspects of the issue. The AlSur network, for example, has formulated two documents, one about disinformation and the pandemic, and the other regarding the strategic use of false content by political authorities (Álvarez Ugarte 2020; AlSur 2021a). The Argentinian organization Desconfio has done research on the accessing and sharing of information on WhatsApp by the elderly (Clarín 2020). In 2021, Chile’s Derechos Digitales conducted an investigation into electoral advertising on Facebook, in partnership with the country’s Electoral Service. Research centers have also carried out investigations. Also in 2021, FGV in Brazil studied false content related to the electoral process, such as untrue claims about electoral fraud. One study even took place through a partnership with the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court (Ruediger et al. 2020). Research has also been carried out on how various actors respond to the phenomenon. IP.Rec, for instance, has analyzed the responsibilities of intermediaries (Fernandes et al. 2021). Intervozes has published a book evaluating the policies of platforms and the measures taken by them to mitigate the circulation of disinformation (Barbosa, Martins, and Valente 2021). InternetLab has produced documents discussing regulatory proposals in Brazil (Monteiro et al. 2021). Important facets of the production of information are continual monitoring and periodic reporting. An important example of this is the annual report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the IACHR. Chile’s Fundación Datos Protegidos prepares an annual report on freedom of expression in Chile. Observacom is an observatory that tracks communication-related news and developments in the region, and reports on them through its website. It also publishes a periodic email newsletter. The organization has carried out research and published technical reports on various topics, I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH including disinformation, either independently or in partnership with other institutions. CELE also monitors and produces ongoing information on the subject. The center analyzes bills on issues related to freedom of expression, including disinformation. As previously mentioned, the center produces analyses of these bills in different countries in the region, supporting the activities of actors in the advocacy field. 11.5 ADVOCACY AND POLICY EFFORTS Political advocacy is a recurrent element in the activities of the actors analyzed for this study. Civil society organizations are strongly active in Latin America and the Caribbean on various issues, both in conjunction with public institutions and in direct dialogue with platforms. At the regional level, many organizations have contributed to the debates convened by the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, such as the process that resulted in the guide to combat disinformation in electoral contexts (RELE 2019). The APC and AlSur have contributed to this process, as well as entities such as Observacom, Access Now, Derechos Digitales, and the EFF. Regionally active organizations also engage in advocacy in national processes, such as the approval of norms at the executive level or legal initiatives. This form of advocacy consists in gaining international support to put pressure on political decision makers. Several regionally active organizations reported using this type of strategy, such as Derechos Digitales, Access Now, the APC, and the EFF. The advocacy strategy was used in each of the five case study countries. It is a common strategy among the majority of civil society actors and research centers. In all countries, legal initiatives have been identified in recent years, and organizations in each of the countries have developed different advocacy strategies. Derechos Digitales mentioned interaction with politicians, members of congress, and senators in the early stages of proposals to make sure that certain types of content are not included in the proposals. This strategy was also mentioned by CELE in Argentina, Latin America and the Caribbean – 1 1 5