Article 19 in Mexico, and Linterna Verde, FLIP, and Fundación Karisma in Colombia. Another method employed is the elaboration of analyses, technical notes, and documents evaluating legal initiatives based on the construction of policy positions. The organizations then disseminate these documents through their communication channels and also seek to distribute them through the media, in the form of published reports or interviews. A frequently used strategy is to conduct campaigns about a certain proposal, either to change it or to oppose it. A well-cited example is the campaign carried out in 2020 and 2021 by CDR in Brazil against Bill 2630. The coalition carried out activities on different fronts, both in the executive branch and in Parliament, where the Bill was, at the time of writing, being considered. Although cooperation between civil society organizations is a common method among the actors included in this study, only in Brazil has a formal network been established, in the form of CDR. At the regional level, even though different types of partnerships have been formed, the only civil society network of regional scope we found was AlSur. The organizations surveyed for this study also reported advocacy work directed at digital platforms. Derechos Digitales reported holding conversations with these agents on various topics, including disinformation. Some platforms have established partnerships with civil society organizations, as in the case of AlSur. Avaaz reported holding meetings with executives to discuss demands from segments such as the workers employed by these companies. 12. CHALLENGES FACED IN COMBATING DISINFORMATION Based on the experiences of and lessons learned by the actors in the fight against disinformation in Latin America and the Caribbean, as explained by representatives of civil society organizations during the workshops and interviews and in the survey conducted, a set of challenges has been identified. The following challenges hinder the expansion of the efforts to combat disinformation in the region: 1. The lack of a common definition of the phenomenon 2. The region’s internet access model 3. Individuals’ attitudes to disinformation 4. The multinational nature of the phenomenon 5. Fragmented solutions 6. The context of political polarization 7. The limits of and challenges related to fact checking 8. The limits of and challenges related to media education 9. The limits of and challenges related to research 10. The limits of and challenges related to regulatory solutions 11. The role of digital platforms 12. The use of technology. 12.1 DEFINITION OF THE PHENOMENON The first challenge consists in the very definition of the phenomenon. As previously discussed, there is no common understanding amongst the actors in the region on how to define disinformation. This lack of alignment appears to make it difficult for the actors to act against false content, especially in an articulate manner. Renata Mielli (interview, August 2021) from Centro Barão de Itararé called attention to this issue: Faced with the complexity of conceptualizing and establishing a clear formulation of “fake news,” we are working with an umbrella concept that society uses as terminology for all kinds of problematic speech: hate speech, homophobia, racism. These are different problems. The cause is multifaceted—it has cultural, social, economic origins, and it is related to new paradigms of information circulation and the organization of I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH Latin America and the Caribbean – 1 1 6