Does that include governments? Or is there no objective standard -- the mis/disinformation is whatever the (local/state/federal) government is not currently sup

Does that include governments? Or is there no objective standard -- the mis/disinformation is whatever the (local/state/federal) government is not currently supporting? It's obviously a slippery slope approaching censorship this way. Mis/disinformation should not be conceived of as skeptical questioning that may lead to dumb people making bad choices. That's a level of second-guessing and faux-benign concern that cannot guide policies of censorship. Skeptical questioning, dialog, and debate is more beneficial for society than it is dangerous to dumb people (who are high-risk even without overhearing the speculative conversations of others). There is some level of acceptable risk, whether it's vehicular traffic, or allowing people to speak their mind. Think about the societal product of ten years living where skepticism of government is effectively outlawed vs a government routinely subjected to open skepticism. I think the latter is a stronger society.