There is an emerging consensus that the term “fake news” is problematic, partly because it suggests an inherent contradiction (“news” is by definition verifiable reports), partly because the term “fake news” can be taken to refer to satirical news programs which offer legitimate critiques of journalism (Wasserman 2017), and partly because of the way the term has been “weaponized” by politicians to undermine the news media. Despite this rapid growth in research, the key concepts and theories underpinning the area are still debated (Damstra et al. 2021). One of the most influential typologies for the concept of “information disorder” comes from Wardle and Derakshan (2017). Their conceptual framework for examining information disorder identifies three types of information which, taken together, constitute the overall disorder. These information types are distinguished on the basis of their degree of harm and falseness, as well as on the assumed intention of the sender. These elements are referred to as misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, and distinguished as follows (Wardle and Derakshan 2017, 5, 20): • Misinformation is when false information is shared, but no harm is intended. • Disinformation is when false information is knowingly shared to cause harm. • Malinformation is when genuine information is shared to cause harm, often by moving information designed to stay private into the public sphere. Such information might be based on reality, but it is used to inflict harm on a person, organization, or country (e.g. email leaks, online harassment, and hate speech). Wardle and Derakshan (2017, 6) furthermore highlight the different elements of such information: • Actors are distinguished according to their type, level of organization, type of motivation, level of automation, intended audience, intention to cause harm, and intention to mislead. • The message is distinguished according to its duration, accuracy, legality, imposter type, and target. • The interpreter refers to how the message is read and what action is taken. I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH When analyzing information disorder, Wardle and Derakshan (2017, 6) also focus on different phases of information disorder—that is, the moments of the message’s creation, reproduction (when the message is turned into a media product), and distribution (when the media product is made available for consumption). While this typology of information disorder is comprehensive and detailed, making it suitable as a framework to understand the problem as a whole, it also has some limitations. As Bontcheva and Posetti (2020, 44) point out, Wardle and Derakshan’s typology hinges largely on the ability to identify the intention of the sender, which is not always practical, because such motives are often diverse, contradictory, or unclear. Problems also arise when motivations change along the informational distribution chain, for instance when a message originally created with the intention to mislead (“disinformation”) is widely shared by users not having the same motivation to deceive (thus becoming “misinformation”), even if the harmful effect and consequence of the message remain the same. Bontcheva and Posetti (2020, 44) further argue that the notion of “malinformation” could stigmatize nondisinformational discourses in which particular facts may be selected as part of legitimate debates and contestation of meaning. For this reason, Bontcheva and Posetti (2020, 25) prefer using the umbrella term “disinformation” to “broadly refer to content that is false and has potentially damaging impacts.” On the other hand, the different elements specified in Wardle and Derakshan’s typology (actors, message, interpreter) create the opportunity to identify different entry points for interventions, for example by focusing on the regulation of actors, the correction of the message, or the education of those who receive and interpret the message. Bontcheva and Posetti (2020) use a similar distinction between different disinformation elements in their framework to categorize different types of responses: • Ecosystem responses are aimed at producers and distributors (including legislative, pre-legislative, and policy responses; national and international counter-disinformation campaigns; and electoralspecific responses). • Responses within the production and distribution of messages include curatorial responses, technical and algorithmic responses, and demonetization and advertising-linked responses. • Responses aimed at the target audiences of disinformation campaigns include normative and ethical responses, educational responses, and lastly empowerment and credibility-labelling responses. Introduction – 0 9