Dividing people is a bad idea because we have much more in common than is different between us. We should always try to be more inclusive and tone down the class wars and cancellations. We probably won't make any social progress while throwing stones into the opposing tribes instead of working together.
But you can't be inclusive of falsehoods, you can only open to legitimate concerns raised by the various groups, because any solution we find needs to be viable in the real world.
I don't trust revolutionaries - I've been burned before, and also read history. Revolutionaries, social warriors and activists love revolution more than peace itself. If we want to succeed we need to win the peace, not the war.
Conversely if one's opponent(s) considers themselves to be fighting a war and you don't, then you're placing yourself at a severe disadvantage. I'm not sure where you got he idea that the grandparent comment was proposing deception of one's fellow citizens, since it was bemoaning weaponized disinformation which is by definition deceptive.
The idea of war is that it the extension of policy
This is an idea of war that views it as a tool of leverage in interstate negotiations. But if there's evidence to suggest than opponent is using it for other purposes as you describe, then it would be foolish to ignore that.
Just because wrong information can become outgroup culture does not suddenly make the wrong information true.
Particularly when it stipulates world views that vilify whole other groups as allegedly being responsible for everything wrong.
The end result is not just a culture that might endorse violence against others, but something that could probably be described as a cargo cult where wrong information becomes dogmatic tradition.
Antisemitism has already taken such a shape, most if not all of the theories voiced by some modern outgroups are just reboots of allegations that are centuries old and have justified violence for just as long.
Case in point: The whole "elites abducting children to sacrifice them" theory, which regained popularity trough QAnon, is just a more modern take on the William of Norwich blood libel [0].
That has been around for close to a millennium because it's an idea that survives in certain religious outgroup cultures. Do we really have to tolerate the intolerance to be considered tolerant? Is there really no rough line that can be drawn?
Tolerance is meaningful when it is mostly unbearable, otherwise it's just preference. That idea is elaborated well in SSC's "I can tolerate anything but the outgroup." The relative truth of wrong information is a glass house I don't think advocates of censorship are intellectually equipped to defend. Their only tool is deception, and inevitably force, and the points we can score on them have no value.
The deeper controversy is whether on the internet we will accept a rules based order, or discretion. It's the old "rule of law vs. rule of men" issue. What has changed in the last 140 years or so is of course, total, instant globalization, with the internet, but more subtly, that the language used to reason about these things has itself become unmoored.
What I think we should all reflect on is how as individuals we can become a bit less enthusiasitically murderable to one another, before worrying about how we can change what others think. It's the one problem we can all make progress on.
One big step towards that is agreeing on a common conceptualization for the world and universe we live in.
If we can't even agree on such very measurable basics, like the Earth being a globe, what hope can we have on agreeing on anything that's meaningful to our everyday life or anything deeper philosophical?
I originally hoped the web would be the solution to this, a global medium for a global species to arrive at a global worldview, yet here we are, with increasingly more outgroups believing increasingly delusional/unrealistic worldviews.
It seems unwise to imagine oneself engaged in a war because it just licenses your opponent. The idea of war is that it the extension of policy, which in every other circumstance can be negotiated, but if instead of negotiating policy, these same people are engaged in a deception to exterminate or subordinate an opposition, that's not policy, that's just a power struggle for its own end, and it's not something to be reconciled.
If you want to treat fellow citizens as an enemy force, say so, and they will come to the table as one. But if you want to just decieve them, I'd wonder whether we were the baddies. We probably don't want to make civilian technologists legit targets in this war either.
Surely the people developing or advocating these techs are capable of enough self awareness to recognize how every example of "blatant disinformation," has an equivalent worthy of targeting, so introducing them as anything other than abstractions doesn't really yield perspective.