I've resolved to avoid responses, unless it's a subject where I have an especially valuable perspective (e.g. personal expertise, I have a passage from a credible book that could be relevant, or I have a highly relevant anecdote to share).
It's almost always not worth it to get involved in a controversial topic discussion (examples include journalism, Apple products, urban planning and whether the ending of a popular television series was good or not). It can be distracting and draining, especially if people respond negatively or you get downvoted (I tell myself it's just internet points, but it feels punishing despite my rational thoughts), and I'm unlikely to change minds. There's more to life that's more rewarding (e.g. reading a book, physical exercise, even playing a relaxing video game for a few minutes).
Unfortunately, the latter two don't typically scale all that well, especially as the bad actor hones their ability to put you in a rhetorical box.
There is not a way to beat bad faith communication with good faith communication at scale, because the latter doesn't scale, because the average/median person is not intelligent enough for it. I wish they were.
A lot of people love drama, and bad faith creates drama. Good faith creates solutions, and a lot of people seek solutions. That alone is enough to be skeptical of anything conclusive.