Sorry I missed this little sound piece sandwiched in between the, well, between your other two statements.

Indeed. I don't think it's even possible to legislate concerning misinformation (not disagreement but misinformation, please!). It is, however, possible to bring the purpose of misinformation and the effects of such a purpose before a court of law. As in the tobacco case mentioned earlier, it is possible to put the deliberate misinformation about the effects of smoking on trial on the very same basis.

I think that is what Hansen means by mentioning the concept of exploitation .. that someone is deliberately misinforming someone else in exchange for something. In my country, the situation is called false marketing if the deliberately wrong information is used for reasons of profit. I know the journalist seems to miss it but I really couldn't imagine why else it would be brought up in conjunction with an industry, if not in the context of profiting on misinformation. Not on disagreement, not on skepticism and not on information but on misinformation.