You can use words, like you did above. That's better, I think, than labeling something. Most likely you would not think everything is "disinfo", so pinning down where departures from agreement starts is probably more useful. That's how Socrates did it!

Also, you move the goal post. You're title is about disagreement, but you want a label for what you think is "disinfo". You can get that on youtube or facebook or probably twitter or reddit (I'm guessing, I only look at youtube of those 4)

What is "Disinfo"? The question brings me back to what I asked above, because such a label obscures what is potentially incorrect. Everything can't be incorrect, and if some wrong thing could ruin or render useless some bit of reading or a video, then we would have to throw out all of the scientific literature in the world because there are mistakes and bad assumptions and faulty data and all sorts of things in either every paper or in the papers they cite. Many papers start with incorrect statements in their introductions, but you keep reading and deal with what they did and how they did it and assess that before even considering their conclusions. Obviously they can't get conclusions right if their methods are bad or data flawed, but they can (and often do) have good data and good methods and crap for conclusions. Often they add in sentences into their conclusions that have nothing to do with their work. That used to be frowned upon, but funders of studies can't keep their hands or pens or word processing software out of the papers they paid for.

Should you label this as "disinfo"?