It's actually an interesting exchange as from my perspective, the people who are worried about disinformation are what I would call totalitaritized, where the idea of many-truths and subjectivity is a proxy for there being no truth at all. not so much champagne socialists as more banal, pumpkin spice nihilists.

the difference between a natural and recieved ontology is like a received pronunciation, people use it because they were told to use it for in-group signaling, and not as the effect of competence, principle, or experience. the people who are affectedly concerned about disinformation aren't reasoning from base reality or experience, they are iterating a logic of ideas used for in-group signaling. one of those ideas equates criticism with competence.

a received ontology is an affect, whereas a natural ontology is an effect. a mind that can't tell the difference between effect and affect is not equipped to apprehend the consequences of experience or competence, or of an ontology derived from it. it operates on representations and believes others do because that's the depth of its own experience, its consciousness exists on a substrate of languge and material symbols navigated by criticism. in a word, godless.

the beauty of sites like reddit, 4chan, and related ones is that for all their astroturfing, they accumulate honesty that people managing a hegemonic narrative persona can't allow to exist. disinformation and conspiracy theories exist, but I would argue the perspective that problematizes them is just an in-group affectation.