infowars at least tries to use evidence. sometimes it's fake evidence. other times conclusions are attempted from evidence which does not support them. but at least you can look at it and point out why, precisely, it's wrong when that happens.
"i have this random anecdote that informs my belief, fully intend to use only it/ignore data, and want to control people without needing any evidence whatsoever" strikes me as even harder to work with. but then again, that stance is also openly advocating for more authoritarianism, removal of separation of powers, and forced policy with no more basis than "because i said so". as a policy stance, that is much, much more dangerous than infowars, which appears to be memeing a good % of the time.
or to put it another way: infowars is a path of individuals making stupid choices. 0 basis authoritarianism is how we get governments slaughtering millions for the "greater good". we've seen the latter plenty of times, from ussr to germany to china and many smaller nations alongside them. different "reasons" for mass murder, but same end point of fake ideology authoritarianism. frankly, i'd rather live in a country that allows infowars on principle than a country that does not (and as a result openly slaughters dissenters).