> How do you distinguish between disinfo and being wrong?

Being wrong on purpose, to degrade the conversation itself. Gaslighting, whataboutism, etc. These are techniques used on purpose to destroy a conversation, and it's not simply about being "wrong".

> What if the “authorities” are wrong? Is it disinfo to say so?

No.

> Is suspecting a lab leak as the cause of Covid disinfo, misinfo, wrong or right?

Good example. Early theories were not about a natural virus, studied at Wuhan, that escaped. They were about an engineered bioweapon released on purpose. The latter theory was banned (and continues to be). If there was a measured, logical case for a leak as opposed to a frenzied conspiracy theory, I didn't see it.

I think banning it is bad. If it turns out to be correct you lose so much trust in institutions (which is thin already as “experts” continue to be exposed as frauds, just look at Afghanistan)

However, if it is false (most likely) then banning it puts in a dark place away from sunlight where it can grow and mutate and spread. Streisand effect comes into effect here.

> (which is thin already as “experts” continue to be exposed as frauds, just look at Afghanistan)

Respectfully it sounds like you already bought into the idea that "the experts" (if that can be referred to as a monolith, which I disagree it can) are usually wrong. Btw, no one got Afghanistan "wrong". Most knew the country would fall, no one knew how fast. That's a good example of how, when people claim "the experts got it wrong", they don't understand what said "experts" were actually predicting.

I appreciate you engaging with me on this. You might enjoy a book called “The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium”

Thanks for the recommendation. Have you read "The Death of Expertise"?

Ill check it out thanks!