As someone who visits both HN and 4Chan, I like having the choice. I definitely don't want the government deciding that 4Chan is illegal and wiping it off the 'Net because it contains disinformation.
When you ask, "How should governments fight disinformation," what you're really asking is, "How can governments deny their citizens the right to choose what information they read, watch or listen to." When it's phrased like that, it's not so appealing, is it?
No, it is the other way round. If there are no places where companies and/or governments censor/limit free speech/fight misinformation, every place turns into 4chan and you lose your ability to choose. I'm happy there are places where speech is not restricted. And I'm even more happy that there are places where speech is restricted. Do you think HN should stop moderating discussion?
Do you believe every online forum accessible to Americans should have as strict, or stricter moderation than HN, because it's been demanded by a subset of voters?
There's a hidden assumption in your argument that the only way that forums like Hacker News, etc, can moderate is if the government allows it. Else why would you mention governments and private forums in the same sentence?
I support private forums being able to moderate. I oppose governments having that same power.
When you ask, "How should governments fight disinformation," what you're really asking is, "How can governments deny their citizens the right to choose what information they read, watch or listen to." When it's phrased like that, it's not so appealing, is it?