Scholarly and policy debates should treat the definition of 'misinformation' as a high‑stakes, narrowly governed instrument: broad, vague definitions invite political capture and can be used to delegitimize methodological critics rather than improve public information. Definitional discipline (transparent operational criteria, provenance of claims, and public robustness maps) helps separate genuine bad‑faith propaganda from legitimate epistemic dispute.
— How we define 'misinformation' will determine whether public policy curbs genuine harms or becomes a tool for silencing heterodox scholarship and political opposition.
2026.01.04
100% relevant
Author Dan Williams is cited by van der Linden & McIntyre as an example of someone 'cultivated' by authoritarians for criticising expansive misinformation definitions; Williams argues that the accusation misrepresents methodological debate about definitional scope.
← Back to All Ideas