[generalizations]

What is your specific suggestion? It sounds like you're saying that we should assume it's all just stupidity, and there is no intentionality to any kind of apparent psyops/agitators/shills, and we should just pretend like it's all good.

That's naive. We simply end up with forums where, if such bad actors do exist, they have a much easier time controlling the narratives. Better to harbor a modicum of suspicion, for the sake of protecting the genuineness of the community.

[ratel]

Well my suggestion would be to be confident and positive. Confident that your issue/ cause/subject is important and that there are enough other people sharing that believe in the forum, regardless of the nay-sayers. With positive I mean post things that are on topic for you, comment on things you find contributing to the issue/cause/subject and refrain from the rest. You really don't have to tell people that something is inappropriate, that they are wrong, dangerous. They will learn by not getting a response. Don't try to control a narrative, try to share a narrative with as much people who are willing to join the forum.

[Eisenstein]

Hanlon's razor should be modified to to include 'without adequate evidence' at the beginning. You can gain this evidence from repeated interactions or from the community as a whole. This is going to be subjective so there is not going to be a list of pass/fail tests you can apply.