Free speech and disinformation are two different things. IMAO intentional disinformation and influencing the masses with alternative facts (sometimes backed by a network of fake science institutes) should be considered a crime.
The problem is once you give someone arbiter powers for determining misinformation it’s going to be used on something that is factual either on accident or intentionally. Logically you can either have full free speech or you support censorship, I’m not convinced there is a workable middle ground.
I think an alternative "middle ground" is to empower users and communities to enforce their own rules and views of the social graph, instead of having global omnipotent recommendation algorithms. I strongly desire a nazi-free WWW, yet i find that relying on the State to fight against nazism (despite most state apparatuses across the planet being filled with actual nazis) has more downsides than upsides.