> Disinformation isn't a matter of opinion, but crucially a matter of fact. If you mean that disinformation involves either misrepresenting facts, or (much mor

> Disinformation isn't a matter of opinion, but crucially a matter of fact. If you mean that disinformation involves either misrepresenting facts, or (much more common and much more insidious) carefully choosing which perfectly valid facts to highlight and which ones to ignore, yes, I agree that's true. But the excuse disinformers always hide behind when called out on this is that choosing which facts to present always involves matters of opinion and judgment--after all, there are so many facts that it's impossible to present them all, so everyone has to pick and choose. And that is true: there are too many facts to present them all. That's why disinformation is so hard to combat: because there can never be an objective test for it. It's always going to come down to one person's opinion against another about whether a given presentation is a fair one or not. > If we disagree about what is disinformation, there's a good chance you are wrong. Huh? I'm the only one who could be wrong if we disagree? Who gave you papal infallibility?