Wikipedia has a good rule in Articles for Deletion debates, where they decide which articles to keep when people nominate them for deletion. They're not votes. You can get all your friends to chime in with dumb comments saying "keep" or "delete" for stupid reasons, but the admin who evaluates the AfD debate is supposed to ignore the count of comments supporting any given argument, and just make a note of the diversity of those arguments, and then evaluate which set of arguments are stronger. You can spam an AfD with misinformation, but at least in theory it shouldn't work (in fact, you might be just as likely to piss off the admin and nudge them the other way).
That's a good way to look at HN threads as well. If you have something interesting to say, say it, and then get out of the way; let the dumb comments be the noise, not yours.
This is all very meta, I know, but this whole thread is so pointless that meta can only improve it.
“Rogan literally said "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid" to millions of millions of his listeners.”
was really valuable to me. Because it's so incredibly stupid that if one can string together a bunch of such comments from JR, it can actually persuade some people to not believe him. We have a type of Godman quack around here who spouts nonsense on TV. Some people string together all the outright nonsensy parts and make a single video, while referencing where they came from. Those are really helpful.
Edit: also it's a problem with only some message boards. There are message boards where a comment such as 'raynier made will be outright dismissed. And they are also places where 'thoughtful conversations' happen. Also I don't think it's 'badgering' when you quote something incredibly stupid and dangerous JR said.
Edit2: also there is an order of more people that just read comments than comment. A concrete comment of yours like the one I quoted above can really convince some people. It's a good thing.