[mswtk]

There is no way to separate dissent from disinformation a priori, other than by making assumptions about the other party's good faith. And so, you can paint anything you disagree with as disinformation if you think poorly enough of them, as you've demonstrated in this post. And it's very easy to think poorly about political opponents in particular.

The end result will be no dissent whatsoever, just two groups calling each other liars at every step.

[hackyhacky]

> There is no way to separate dissent from disinformation a priori

You might as well say "There is no way to separate pornography from innocent family photos, other than by making assumptions about the othes party's good faith."

Yes, it's a judgment call. But it's a judgment call that's not hard to make; it's a judgment call that we need to make in order to maintain a civil society.

[chordalkeyboard]

> You might as well say "There is no way to separate pornography from innocent family photos, other than by making assumptions about the othes party's good faith."

I think sexual activity and nudity are a lot more relevant than one’s perception of the creator’s good faith in thise case.