We must agree to disagree. A definition of "information" as content-less [or content free] and nothing more than what "communication" delivers puts the epistemological cart before the horse, and is really unworthy of any serious consideration.
Counterexamples abound, including the transmission of random noise or counterfactual content, which your definition requires us to call "information" [neither of these things is, outside of an extraordinarily narrow context.]
The reductio ad absurdum of your belief is that neither mathematical proof nor scientific discovery actually produces information, and that indeed, there is no source of any original information except for a supernatural [and unscientific] cause; which is where the real misappropriation occurs in this discussion. But I am not going to get into this in detail because I'm not interested in such a silly definition. My tagline applies to what you consider to be "information."
I reject everything following your first sentence in order to accept your first sentence.