“Words/posts, if left unaddressed, can mislead people”

This is defensible, but it needs qualification.

A public statement can influence people even when it is false or misleading. If nobody challenges it, some readers may interpret the absence of a rebuttal as evidence that the claim is uncontested or correct.

For example:

A posts: “There is no historical evidence for X.”

If substantial evidence for X exists, a rebuttal can be valuable because other readers—not necessarily A—may encounter the post and accept it.

So my reasoning is:

public claim is the exposure to an audience and the possibility of acceptance and potential misinformation and rebuttal can correct the record.

But you should not say that every post must be rebutted. Some posts are trivial, obviously subjective, harmless, or simply not worth the time.

A stronger formulation would therefore be:

Public claims that are false, misleading, or potentially consequential can reasonably warrant public rebuttal, particularly when leaving them unchallenged may cause others to accept them as established fact.

That is stronger intellectually than saying simply “words left unaddressed can mislead.”