I really don't see a clear difference between shills, disinfo, and controlled opposition. I see shills and controlled opposition as people who knows on some level what they're saying is wrong, but they say it anyway to please their masters. The loose distinction between that a disinfo agent would be that disinfo is more a science than art, an organized campaign by public or private intelligence agents. A shill is more likely to be a servant to the system in an indirect way while a disinfo ait'gent is actually a paid employee or contractor of it. They also have to be trying to trick people who have good intentions into their audience. I don't really consider Musk a shill since he's just saying 'I'm a transhumanist' but doesn't appear to be trying to deceive people. There's also the probable reality of shills who are paid by foreign countries to focus on conspiracies in the US. As long as they're not lying or misleading people, I don't consider them to be shills or disinfo, even if their allegiance to a foreign power and status as a paid operative is clear.
I don't disagree with your point on Chapelle and Hollywood, but there are gray areas with some of these people. Re: Ventura. He's a likeable guy, he kind of makes himself look zany in interviews, and he never gets into any really deep conspiracy material. That may or may not be intentional. Some people are just wrong. He's allowed to stay on air because he's not really a threat and doesn't get viewers in too deep. But that doesn't make him a true gatekeeper. He's financially independent and I haven't seen any evidence of him hobnobbing with celebrities or looking for or getting any work other than conspiracy-related stuff.
I think some of these entries fall more in the realm of personal theories than something like a blacklist. I just don't think a case has been made for many of these people: Bill Cooper, Tracy, Fetzer.
Agree on Abby Martin, Assange, Snowden, Dylan Avery, Jeff Hill, WeAreChange (some of its members; I think many may be legit), Rense, Springmeier (think he is more just wrong than disinfo), Zero Hedge as suspicious (many are all but confirmed as far as I'm concerned but I don't have specific evidence). (for me it's much closer to confirmed, but based more on a hunch). Agree on Moore, Greer, Zeitgeist as confirmed. Disagree on Reynolds, Fetzer, Tracy, Corbett, Sibrel. Don't see any evidence at all for Rodriguez. Inconclusive (as far as the list goes): Russo, Gunderson, Judy Wood, Rogan, Ventura. Haven't had a chance to look into Lear. I think Coulter is too mainstream a conservative to be considered a shill. As far as I know she has pretty much echoed the Limbaugh talking points.
For a lot of these channels, they are over the top but I don't see things that are actually lies or that mislead viewers. I believe there is a satanic element to these events, and the number and mark of the beast is clearly some kind of real agenda. There are also real agendas to create confusion around gender and sexual orientation, and destroy the family. A lot of these channels cover things like that, albeit in a very over the top way, and then might have one video asking questions about CERN. To me that's not a home run to be added to the list as confirmed.