So what's untrue is whatever the establishment and captured-incompetent institutions decide is untrue? E.g. posting that Ivermectin shows 50%+ reduction in mortality (citing the studies) would have high probability to be deemed "spreading false information" - based on current behaviour regarding even mentioning Ivermectin?

How can they know the intent? UK government is increasingly becoming a nightmare dystopia. I doubt many "antivaxers" are knowingly spreading false information. What the government/establishment/authority-de-jure says is the truth is rarely the whole truth.

My guess it's a process: 1) you post something "untrue", 2) the captured-incompetent establishment/government tells you it's untrue, 3) you post it again, 4) they arrest you because "you knew it was untrue because we told you it was."

just need the government to put us on notice as to what’s true and what’s lies, and we’ll have solved the problem of dissent!

You are electing your government I get why people jump to censorship conclusions and what not but in the end if we all look a bit more to whom we are electing we might just get this right instead of building the dystopian future everyone seems to look forward to.

Pretty dystopic

How do you determine who the "likely audience" is? Can someone or groups you don't know be the audience?

What about statements that cannot be verified? e.g. the existence of God(s)