Disagree - The tools for hyperbole, opposing viewpoints, and factually false information do not prevent people from publishing it. Aggregators (facebook, HN et al) choosing to promote more vetted info is not the same as preventing people from publishing it.

In fact I would go so far as to say that pushing for allowing anyone to publish on a free and open internet is necessary for defending against disinformation. The alternative is censoring (in a generic sense, not necessarily a law sense) things, which can heighten disinformation dramatically.

I agree that a free and open Internet is the best defense against disinformation.

It's a lousy defense. Massive amounts of disinformation will be shared (are shared) on a free Internet.

But "defending against disinformation" sounds like the excuse the government will use for censorship.

people tend to view "free and open internet" insofar as it promotes their own views. Free and open internet is nice if it destablizes the power of traditional religion and promotes tolerance of alternative sexuality, but if the same corrosive power is turned on the values of the gatekeepers, suddenly we're arguing about no longer allowing comments on web pages, debating about "fake news" and the like.

People tend to want to cloak their own values in rhetoric that is appealing. They want to seem tolerant and open, when really they want to be closed and intolerant of opposition to their own values. Some people realize this tendency in themselves, but many of those in power or as gatekeepers don't at all.

Or maybe ban advertising on sites with disinformation.

Not mutually exclusive, but the fix for the latter to ensure the former is education, not legislation.

The power to declare something "disinformation" is the power to censor.

I don't think I'd trust anyone who has governed in my lifetime not to abuse that power.

I think you missed my point. It takes critical thinking to discern truth from misinformation, regardless of political preferences.