The different conceptualizations carry different emphases. Authors who adopt the concept of post-truth, such as Fernández-García (2017) and Busaniche (2020), emphasize that this practice is not about knowing or not knowing the veracity of a fact, but rather about disregarding the very facts to assert one’s own stance. Some authors, such as Hernández (2020a) and Valenzuela et al. (2019), point out the insufficiency of terms such as “fake news” and advocate the use of “disinformation.” Recuero and Soares (2021) and Laguna (2020), for example, argue that the element of intentionality is a defining characteristic of disinformation. Silva Jr. et al. (2020) list contrived information and the generation of harm to third parties as necessary components of disinformation. Divergences also appear in the circumscription of the phenomenon. Pérez (2019) argues that disinformation encompasses fraudulent information (fake news), misleading content, hate speech (malinformation), deliberately spurious speech (false speech), and unintentional informational errors committed by journalists (misinformation). Hernández (2020b) also considers errors and forms of manipulation as part of the phenomenon. Other authors (Barbosa, Martins, and Valente 2021; Delmazo and Valente 2018; Recuero and Soares 2021) offer a more restricted understanding, pinning down the practice as one with a factually false dimension, marked by the intention to produce damage or to obtain political or economic advantages. Authors such as Lazcano (2020) and Copa and Peredo Rodríguez (2020) describe disinformation as a far-reaching phenomenon, not limited to messages and one-off campaigns. It is a cyclical process that extends beyond elections or political procedures, with impacts on the construction of imaginaries in society. 2.2 PERSPECTIVES ON DISINFORMATION A recurrent assessment among Latin American scholars is that disinformation is a historical phenomenon with manifestations long predating the most recent episodes (Bisbal 2020; Hernández Pérez 2018; Zaniboni 2019). Botero (2002), for I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH example, discusses disinformation in Plan Colombia, the US initiative aimed at combating drug cartels in that country, between 1998 and 2002. Effectively, one aspect of the approaches found in the region is to analyze disinformation not only on digital platforms, but also in traditional communication media. There is also a focus on the relationship between these institutions and political groups, for example during elections and in terms of their support for or opposition to governments (Falomir et al. 2019; Jaramillo 2007; Rodríguez 2013; Serra 2016). Another characteristic of the Latin American and Caribbean approach examined in the literature is the role of political authorities and governments themselves as promoters of disinformation. Through a comparison of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, Bizberge and Segura (2020) highlight the role of these political agents at the state level, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Viscardi (2020) examined the false claims in Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s Twitter posts from 2019 to 2022. Although this practice is linked to traditional communication media, several authors emphasize the role of the internet, and especially of digital platforms, in the formation of new environments that have driven the production and diffusion of misleading content. This is facilitated by these platforms’ business models and modes of information circulation, which are powered by the collection and processing of user data (Cobos 2020; Ceron et al. 2021; Mielli and Romanini 2021; Hernández Pérez 2018; Hernández Pérez 2021; Pérez 2021; Rodríguez-Hidalgo, Mier-Sanmartín, and Coronel-Salas 2020; Schneider and Valente 2021; Valente 2021). Other authors accentuate the relevance of algorithms used by platforms as systems that drive disinformation (Sued 2021; Zaniboni 2019). Sued and Kedikian (2020) list algorithms and other technologies such as bots as elements employed to drive an ecosystem of disinformation. Some authors (Calzado, Cirulli, and Lio 2021; CrawfordVisbal, Osman, and Navia 2020; Cusot and Palacios 2020) point to the role of users and recipients as audiences who have come to take on a more active role in the production and dissemination of content, including disinformation. A number of authors situate the phenomenon within a broader context, such as political polarization (Marino 2019) or attacks on democracy (Cañabate, Rosa, and Rojano 2020; Carvalho 2020; Flax 2020; Pineda et al. 2019). Ribeiro and Ortellado (2018) posit what they call mídia hiper-partidária Latin America and the Caribbean – 1 24