Themes beyond politics and the pandemic were also identified in the literature. Also within the health field, Sacramento and Paiva (2020) investigated false content related to yellow fever vaccination in Brazil. Fernandes and Montuori (2020) examined the claims of the anti-vaccine movement in Brazil. Maldonado (2020) discussed disinformation on Mexico’s southern border. Roque (2020) problematized environmental and climate denialism in Brazil and how it is being driven by Jair Bolsonaro’s administration. Pasquim, Oliveira, and Soares (2020) evaluated disinformation about illicit drugs that were verified by fact-checking agencies in Brazil. Mena-López and Ramírez Aristizábal (2018) discuss the rise of disinformation about so-called gender ideology and how it gained centrality on the political scene in Colombia by being used to propagate the vote against the peace agreement in the 2016 referendum. Osuna and Soforza (2020) evaluated the correlation between gender ideology and disinformation spread by the new right (such as Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Donald Trump in the USA). Rosa, Souza, and Camargo (2020) investigated disinformation associated with gender ideology in the form of a claim about the Brazilian government distributing a so-called “gay kit,” which allegedly contained materials that would foster a homosexual sexual orientation in children. Aguirre (2020) discusses disinformation as a strategy to trivialize reports of gender-based violence in El Salvador. In the third group, which focuses on responses to the problem of disinformation, the literature review found works primarily oriented toward four different types of initiatives, focusing on fact checking, raising public awareness and media education, analyzing the responses of digital platforms, and regulation. Fact-checking projects are the subject of several research studies (Cusot and Palacios 2020; Pabón and Viloria 2020; Palacios, Paz, and Torrealba 2021; Pérez 2021). Pérez, Calderón, and Coronado (2021) differentiate journalistic verification from the a posteriori data verification done by fact checkers. Some of the articles analyzed projects. For example, Palacios, Paz, and Torrealba (2021) looked into the experience of Fact-checking projects the Venezuelan fact-checking project are the subject of Cotejo; Cusot and Palacios (2020) several research studies. discuss the experiences of Ecuador Chequea; Cañabate, Rosa, and Rojano (2020) focus on the Reverso initiative during Argentina’s 2019 elections; and Galhardi et al. (2020) investigated Brazil’s Fato ou Fake project. I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH While a number of the papers aim to describe or evaluate specific fact-checking initiatives or episodes, there are also critical problematizations of various aspects. These include the limits of fact checking, the subjective nature of content evaluation, and the lack of transparency in the selection of the news chosen for verification (Albuquerque 2021; Ceron et al. 2021; Clavero 2018). Other authors have devoted their attention to media education initiatives (Costa and Romanini 2019; Cruz Jr. 2019; Fernández-García 2017; Luna 2020; Parchen, Freitas, and Cavalli 2020; Vianna and Carvalho-Mendonça 2021). Fernández-García (2017) posits this response as “more necessary than ever” to combat disinformation. Luna (2020) also emphasizes the relevance of educating the public to understand what they read, citing this effort as all the more important in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. Also among the responses to the disinformation phenomenon that are discussed in the reviewed articles are those employed by digital platforms. Barbosa, Martins, and Valente (2021) evaluated the internal rules of and measures taken by the major platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and WhatsApp) between 2018 and 2020, a period which included elections as well as the first year of the pandemic. Rodríguez, Viloria, and Torrealba (2020) list the actions taken by platforms during the pandemic to combat disinformation. The regulation response is also a subject of discussion in the literature (Amato 2021; Campinho 2019; Hartmann and Iunes 2020; Rais 2018). Vianna and Carvalho-Mendonça (2021) argue that regulation proposals have stirred controversy. Some authors have conducted analyses of regulatory experiences globally and in the region. Veronese and Fonseca (2018) compared regulations in the EU and the USA. Valente (2019) undertook a mapping of various regulatory models globally. Sanchez Cifuentes (2019) compared legislation in Brazil and Colombia. Rigther (2018) evaluated the Mexican legal framework and the possibilities of applying previously established rules, such as censorship and the right to reply, to false content. Other authors discuss avenues for the appropriate regulation of the problem, giving special weight to the complexity and risks of tackling the phenomenon from the standpoint of existing regulatory models. Marino (2019) is critical of handing over the responsibility to assess the veracity of content to states, arguing that regulation should respect international human rights parameters. Maldonado (2020) lists the duties of the state in the face of Latin America and the Caribbean – 1 26