You're playing a very dangerous game, even if wartime changes the calculus. Though what you're saying about judgement is true, all of the worst cases of authoritarian repression were similarly justified. "We can't allow capitalist propaganda, we're facing an existential threat/they'll sabotage us", "we can't allow jewish propaganda, we're facing an existential threat/they'll destroy the race", "we can't allow communist propaganda, we're facing an existential threat/they'll destroy our freedom", etc. Viewing information as munition rather than a raw resource meant to be democratically parsed is something all repressive systems share in common.
What distinguishes our society is our ability to self correct and our decentralized method of truth discovery. That can and does get used against us, as will our hypocrisy if we alter our approach. The solution to abuse of that decentralization is not to bureaucratize truth and create a mechanism for centralized information control, however well intended or carefully crafted to attempt balance. The system level solution is to make sure that those speaking the truth within our systems are protected and discovered. The societal level solution is to make sure that those people have enough credibility and leadership capital to be listened to and take that responsibility seriously.
Our major news organizations have been burning their credibility and leadership capital for at least a decade. The willingness of people to defer to random online youtube personalities over more established sources is a failure of those established sources. That loss of credibility cannot be solved by blocking worse sources. Those more established sources need to be more honest, engage in more long form discussion and less narrative crafting, and most importantly, speak with more humility and without patronizing the masses that are falling for the propaganda. If the only people genuinely acknowledging certain grievances and speaking to an audience like equals are bad actors or influenced by bad actors, those falling for propaganda have no reason to switch sources.
That's not to say there aren't other more immediately actionable solutions to online chaos and disinformation. From the technical side, there should be less algorithmic emotional hijacking/feed manipulation. If this industry hadn't pursued click maximization so aggressively and took viewpoint diversity more seriously as an essential design goal these platforms would be much more difficult to take advantage of by propagandists. I understand why things evolved as they did and understand a lot of people have been and are trying very hard to promote societal health, but there's a certain culture of arrogance and desire to tweak human behavior that's won out over a culture of viewpoint diversity that I think would have much more effectively inoculated people against the kind of destructive propaganda state actors we're seeing now.