I think the main issue with Rogen is that while he provides a platform for voices across the political/social spectrum (which is great), he does very little to challenge his guests and generally goes with the flow. This means that people making false claims or dog whistle statements are being taken at face value alongside people making good faith arguments, which grants those bad actors some amount of undeserved authenticity.

So no, he is not nearly as bad as Andrew Tate etc; but he has a lot of exposure and clout that he does not always bring to bear in the name of true and honest discussion. Also the whole RFK debate thing is really poignant here as it's a typical example of taking two "balanced" perspectives on vaccines and assuming that they both deserve to be at the same table, when in reality the anti vax movement largely gets by without any scientific evidence and isn't a reasonable position to hold.