How does the government decide to label a claim "misinformation?"

What process does the government use to label a claim "misinformation?"

Naive people believe the regime only says something is "misinformation" if it's false, but that's clearly wrong, as when "your" government declared that claims by independent researchers that the "vax" was both ineffective and dangerous were "disinformation."

The same thing happened when researchers found the covid virus was modified in a Chinese lab.  Regime said it was disinformation.  But it was true, as most researchers are beginning to quietly admit.

Or like the claim that Fauci sent taxpayer funds to the Wuhan lab to fund "gain of function" research.  He hotly denied it to congress, but we have the grant numbers, and a thank-you from the head of that lab herself, in a paper published in 2015.  So again, true claim, regime calls it disinformation.

As you likely guessed, misinformation, disinformation or the hip, trendy "malinformation" is often true things that your rulers--or their Media lackeys--don't want you to know.

Literally the only test is, if the Democrat regime doesn't want you to believe something, they call it disinformation--even if the information is totally true.

Again, the bit of information can be totally true, but if it bucks the policies of the Democrat party, the biden regime will label it "disinformation." And their Media allies will dutifully parrot that claim.

But as more Americans are beginning to realize that the biden regime and their Media allies consistently lie to us, the regime has mounted a cunning counterattack: An article last week in Forbes (??) claims that simply doing your own research is a "threat to democracy."

Seriously.  The title is "Why ‘Doing Your Own Research’ May Make You Believe Fake News."  And note the scare-quotes around the phrase "doing your own research"--implying that doing one's own research doesn't help you discover when the regime and the Media are lying to ya.

Naturally any claim like that sounds so absurd that you can't believe it.  Well here are the first three 'grafs of the article: 

In an age in which misinformation abounds, how do you determine what is real and what is fake?  New research suggests telling truth from fiction may be more difficult that many people realise [sic; the author is a brit].
   Following a series of experiments, a team of researchers found that study participants were consistently 19% more likely to believe "fake news" after they had performed an online search to figure out the truth.
   That's important, the experts say, because the prevalence and success of such misinformation poses a direct threat to democracy.

Note the cunning, intentional implied definition that ANY search online gives "misinformation."  Subtle, eh?  Bet you missed that the first time.  And if you think that quote is "fake news," click the link to the article and see for yourself.

Oh wait!  The alleged Forbes website could be a fake, eh?  Sure.

Two 'grafs later the propagandists write

Misinformed beliefs can also threaten public health, such as in the case of vaccine misinformation, or be used by powerful interest groups to manipulate public sentiment against climate action measures, such as the development of renewable energy projects.

Wow, in a single 'graf the shills managed to include
    *"threaten public health" (vax skeptics)
    *threats if anyone questions whether CO2 is causing non-trivial global warming;
    *anyone who questions the soundness of so-called "renewable energy projects."

Kinda surprised the author didn't throw in the "threat to our democracy" posed by those who oppose the biden regime's open borders policy, or those who believe China is not our friend, or who believe the IDF should destroy Hamas terrorists.

The cunning Forbes article, in turn, is based on a really crappy paper published in the total propaganda organ "Nature."  It's well worth a look to see how cleverly and brazenly these rat-bastards are trying to keep people from looking at ANY information not approved by the regime.

And in this vein, if you want a glimpse of orgs you've never heard of that are really controlling things, take a look at a page called "doi.org" 

"DOI" claims to "govern the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system on behalf of the agencies who manage DOI registries and provide services to their respective communities."  It piously claims to be a "standards organization" devoted to ensuring the "persistence" of "digital objects."  

Really?  Wanna bet?  Oh sure, "digital objects" (like posts and papers) the Left favors will be carefully preserved to ensure they're available 50 years from now.  But if ya think "doi.org" will save posts by conservative skeptics I've got a bridge to sell ya.  

====

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2023/12/20/why-doing-your-own-research-may-make-you-believe-fake-news/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06883-y

 https://www.doi.org/