Its a different kind of tech. A society changing tech that can be used surreptitiously. It needs to be in people faces in (for example) the form of over the top and ridiculous memes.
That is not possible with or comparable to, things such as bioweapons.
That is a fair point. It is different in that it could be used without necessarily creating destructive ends. Ultimately though, once the majority of people are aware of the capabilities of the technology, is any good being done by still allowing it to be easily accessible? It seems that the value in spreading its use reduces proportionally to the population of people who are still ignorant of it, while the danger of its misuse rises with number of actors/users until fully effective, equally accessible countermeasures are in place. If that's accurate, then it seems that the plan you're advocating for increases danger as quickly as possible and keeps it high while the world works on mitigations.
The plan I'm advocating for immunise the public against the danger of misinformation through deepfakes, as well as cause a lot of resource to be thrown at the problem as the public would surely be very uncomfortable in such a situation
Apply your same logic to any other easily misused tech:
"We must all have easy access to bio-engineered viruses. Otherwise only..."
"We all need to have access to nuclear weapons. Otherwise only..."
Not all tech should be in everyone's hands.