It's true that Gibson's work is compelling because like all great cyberpunk writers, it grafts real world social, cultural, and political considerations in with his futuristic technology. That said, good world-building doesn't mean the author himself might not have naive or problematic politics. J.K. Rowling's expressed views on Twitter have been an ongoing source of controversy. Or perhaps more relevant, Ray Bradbury in his old age became a staunch supporter of George Bush and the wars waged by his administration:

https://www.salon.com/control/2001/08/29/bradbury_2/

https://books.google.com/books?id=rRmlA33pEcsC&pg=PT192&lpg=...

https://web.archive.org/web/20080521050300/http://anthony.gn...

Sure. Shitty politics in fiction still flies.

Generally speaking, it is good for literature to address political topics, and perhaps even take particular positions on them, but it is a bad idea for literature to address specific real people or specific real instances of those topics, if for no other reason than the specific instance is going to be yesterday's news by the time your book comes out. And addressing specific people is almost always a very petty look; even if you are superficially in the choir being preached at and cheering along in the heat of the moment, the work is almost certainly failing to touch you deeply and you probably won't remember it in a month.

(Even when taking positions, the really good stuff will still make sure than the people on the wrong side have some sort of insight applied to them and some effort to understand them on their own terms, rather than just crafting strawmen of bad people who are bad, who deserve to lose, because they are bad.)

I think if you look back at the good political work, you'll find most of them fit this pattern. I'm sure exceptions exist, but they are not common.

Then again, the Divine Comedy had real (then) still alive people in hell.

Gibson is no Alighieri but the Peripheral was still a great book.