Only a tiny percentage of users take part in online discussions . It is important to communicate with bad faith actors so that the overwhelming majority of users who are simply lurkers are exposed to ideas from "the other side". Refusing to engage with bad faith actors is leaving their ideas unchallenged out in the open.
A problem is that one has limited time and energy to respond to these comments, though the idea you've mentioned has motivated responses I've made in the past. It can be draining to submit a well-sourced comment written respectfully, then get downvoted (this is more prevalent on Reddit) where fewer people see it.
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).
The issue being that you're operating in good faith, while they're putting on a show. You're immediately at a disadvantage because they can use any tool at their disposal, whereas you have to stick to truth and rationality.
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.
I think the continuation of this line of thought is often the argument 'their bad faith communication is so effective we have to counter it with our own'.
I hope that this argument under-estimates the intelligence of the silent majority.
That is another good way to phrase the problem described by the parent post of yours.
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.
I have never seen anyone get converted by bad faith arguments, but I have seen people get converted by good faith arguments. So it seems good faith arguments are inherently much stronger, while bad faith arguments are useless except for frustrating the other side.
Bad faith arguments convert by quantity, not quality. If you overwhelm the good faith information with mountains of bad faith information, you'll convince a lot of people, none of whom will be able to point at one specific thing that convinced them.
Considering I see bad faith arguments from politicians in power all the time, I wouldn't say anything conclusive about good faith or bad faith being stronger. This is before mentioning how many people are running around with a victim mentality, quickly antagonize others or engage in social activities which reinforce segregation and labeling over trying to form a social understanding.
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.
