[curo]

The original post discusses harm as a boundary condition.

Things like libel, slander, false statements of fact, false advertising, etc have long been considered beneficial as a limitation on free speech (e.g., not protected by the First Amendment)

The term "misinformation" contains an argument that there is a broader set of statements (not yet considered libelous or false in the eyes of the law), which should be regulated by an appointed group or new set of laws.

The backlash is against this new zeitgeist: a campaign against misinformation is certainly one that dials back the liberal view on freedom of speech, more so than the current boundary conditions already established.