In the same sense that I am puzzled about the specifics when the last president blathered on about "Fake News!," I am unsure of quite what got Neil et al. worked up about "disinformation."
Precisely what do you claim was wrong, and what do you claim is right? On what basis? What are your data?
If someone puts forth a thesis with data that support a more effective model of virus propagation, suppression or whatever, I'm interested. If they simply say "you're wrong, that has been discredited!" without anything to back it up, it kind of rings hollow.
Saying that disagreeing with one stance or another will be met with severe consequences constitutes Argumentum ad Baculum, or appeal to force, which neither supports nor refutes one stance or another. It's on a par with "confess or we put out your eyes!"
Joe Rogan may or may not be spreading disinformation. I really don't know, since everything I know about him I got secondhand.
I would be much more impressed if Neil and Joni were to hold a news conference where they used rock solid data to refute whatever it was with which they disagreed, irrefutably line and verse. Saying "if you disagree with me, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" makes one suspect they don't personally have a clue either way.
As Frank Zappa put it, "Shut up and player guitar."
BSBD,
Winsor