I didn't really read the article beyond the first paragraph, so my comment may be only tangentially relevant, but I just find it amusing that people get up in a

I didn't really read the article beyond the first paragraph, so my comment may be only tangentially relevant, but I just find it amusing that people get up in arms about governments trying to combat disinformation like that's a terrible thing. I would think by now, we'd all realize that private people and private companies are doing a shitty job at fighting disinformation and misinformation. Actually, no, I take that back, we aren't doing a shitty job, because we're not doing a job at it in the first place. In fact, private people seem to encourage and promote misinformation. Private companies certainly do, as long as it helps their profits. Private individuals do as long as it promotes their personal values or sparks any semblance of fear or mistrust in them, regardless of reality. Basically what I'm saying is, do we really prefer privatized misinformation over government-regulated factual information? "But the government's definition of 'facts' is skewed and not actually true!" You just described 90% of the things you read online, incorporate into your identity, then share and promote to other people to continue the chain. Why are you happy to let people take advantage of you as long as they don't hold public office? I'm not saying governmental anti-disinformation campaigns will be perfect, or even good. Just that what we have now with the privatizing of truthiness is completely broken, so why not try a different approach?