I'm not as good at this as I wish but a really common pattern with discourse online is someone sharing a specific event or story, and someone else resharing it with their own piece addressing a more general point. Like someone posts about a popular free audio editor adding invasive telemetry, and a ton of follow-on posts grouse about enshittification and the evils of capitalism.

The problem is that this form of writing implicitly legitimizes the example you started from. All these think pieces that sound well-reasoned must have been based off good info, right? Except when it turns out that "invasive telemetry" was standard crash reports and update checks, now your precious essay is promoting fear mongering and misinformation. But it already got a few thousand reshares, are you really gonna edit or delete it? You weren't even really commenting on the specific issue, you were talking to the general pattern! The moment's already passed, no one will even see it.

Except, of course, every time the misconception comes up again. Years later people will still be saying that the audio editor sends your personal info to servers in Russia, and anyone trying to figure out the truth will still end up at that original post you helped amplify. People will still be giving out advice to use outdated and unmaintained forks because they're now emotionally set against the original and can't turn back.

Perhaps waiting a bit for more expert voices to comment and verify your source would help make the world a little less confused.