Abstract: Falsity is an under-examined notion. We seem to assume, somewhat uncritically, that we know what it is. But in different logics – classical, paracomplete, paraconsistent – the features of falsity are remarkably different, to the extent that one might question whether it's always the same notion in play. In this talk I discuss a number of naively attractive principles concerning falsity. Some of these principles connect falsity to other important logical notions such as truth, untruth and negation, and others concern the normative profile of falsity, an aspect less discussed in logic proper. I explore how the satisfaction of these principles varies across logics, and raise some questions. By what token are we recognising manifestations of the same notion in these different logics? Which aspects of falsity should a theory of it preserve?