Every shady AI marketing ad is misinformation.
It's absurd that Biden's administration went after individuals sharing bad takes on COVID, but not classic fraudulent advertising.
Very troubling to see such a huge mismatch between stated policy and government activity.
"Went after" is misleadingly strong phrasing. They took no legal action against these people. There is also an established public health function of government that, in no small part, corrects misinformation about things like smoking, fad diets, and, yes, Covid.
> but not classic fraudulent advertising
This is already illegal and policed by various federal and state agencies. If the regulatory state fails to punish them, consumers can (and often do) file class-action lawsuits.
In short, this is a strange axe to grind and seems fairly off-topic anyway.
There was legal action taken against some doctors.
In addition.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/health/fda-ivermectin-lawsuit...
And, it's pretty clear that the govt was behind https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-twitter-blacklisting-of-jay...
It would have been illegal for the govt to force the NYT to not print those stories but ...
Note that California passed (and then repealed) a law along these lines - https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issue...
That said, see also https://www.courthousenews.com/california-doctors-falter-in-...
Please give us an example of legal action taken by the Biden administration against doctors.
You're probably remembering that some doctors lost their licenses for spreading lies about Covid, which is entirely appropriate. That was action taken by boards of doctors against incompetent doctors who were a danger to their patients. Again, happy to see a counterexample if you have one, where a doctor suffered consequences from the Biden administration and/or unfairly.
> And, it's pretty clear that the govt was behind [Twitter blacklisting...]
The govt asking Twitter to do something and then Twitter voluntarily doing it is still not Biden "going after" someone. There were (and are) no consequences for social media companies refusing to take meetings with govt disinformation groups, as you can see from the fact that most of them don't do it and Twitter doesn't anymore.
> It would have been illegal for the govt to force the NYT to not print those stories but ...
A sure sign of a weak argument is the use of inuendo rather than saying what you actually mean.
There are many shades of gray to misinformation.