[parsd]

Defining disinformation exhaustively and concretely is an impossible task, it's almost like defining beauty. Moreover, disinformation is not even contradictory to "vetted, objective facts", because not all "information" (which is also hard to define) is necessarily intended to be viewed as factual, and not all information has any kind of deliberate intent associated with it (malicious or useful).

[bluescrn]

The modern definition of 'disinformation' seems to be something along the lines of 'your propaganda but not my propaganda'

[contravariant]

Which makes it a terrible choice of words as it somehow suggests something is not propaganda if it's true.

It also turns discussions about propaganda into discussions about objective truth which is a lot harder. It's easier to show someone has a lot to gain by spreading a certain message, than to verify a bunch of unfounded statements, framing propaganda as 'disinformation' is a brilliant move that makes any subsequent discussion of who to trust about endless fact-checking. It might seem like facts don't matter any more, but focusing on the facts might be the wrong counter move, the facts may well be red herrings used to sneak in dangerous ideology unchallenged.