I don't know where you're getting most of that.
Assumptions. I mistakenly assumed that you were constantly being bombarded with articles about NFTs, and that this constant advertisment was the source of your ire. Please accept my apologies.
-snip-
You are also literally advertising NFTs with this thread too,
How are you supposed to warn people away from scams if you can't actually talk about the scams to warn them about it? I don't understand what you'd rather I do.
-snip-
That part is rather simple. You look for ongoing discussions on the subject and you warn the participants of your concerns. If there
isn't an ongoing discussion, it is usually safe to assume that the community either doesn't know about the subject, or simply don't care enough about it to make a conversation. This ensures that you're not accidentally disseminating information that you would rather wasn't spread.
If people don't know about a thing, then they are hardly likely to go searching for it.
If people are already conversing about the subject, then they're more likely to need the warnings that you're already prepared to give. Places like the site that hosts the podcasts you listen to, or the comments section of the article that has been advertising them, or even in your own blog. If you know enough to prevent websites from tracking your browsing habits, then you presumably know enough to use basic SEO that will up the page rankings on your own blog, assuming that you have one.
If someone decides to debate your concerns, all the better. Simply remember that you're not trying to convince the person you're debating; your target is the invisible audience who will inevitably read what you're both saying. If your opponent is clearly an irrational lunatic with no idea what he's talking about, merely highlight this with reasonable evidence and move on. Don't let them gaslight you, push you into irrationality with insults, or dismiss you. Evidence helps to counter the first and last strategy, taking your time to compose your argument deals with the second one. If they fall foul of the inevitable logical fallacies that uninformed debaters are always plagued with, simply highlight this without giving the name of the specific fallacy, and move on with your argument.
Hm. I wasn't intending to give you a debating guide, but there it is anyway. If it's not useful, feel free to ignore it.
As for that last part of your post, it's probably safe to assume that someone is paying for all of this coverage. Whether NFTs are as untrustworthy as you say or not, someone still stands to make a great deal of money from them and have likely paid multiple platforms to give them as broad an awareness campaign as possible. The trick behind finding those responsible is to find the origin point: the person or group behind the first sales.
