Pseudoscience looks like science but is not: it lacks empirical evidence, method, and testing, and it has no community-wide set of practices open to criticism and refinement. Believing it leads to bad decisions and harmful actions, and spreading it damages health, safety, and well-being. Wikipedia keeps a fine list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is bad.
Some people are more predisposed to it than others. In my experience they show little skepticism toward their own statements, find it hard to rule out more plausible explanations, stop before a thought reaches its logical conclusion, and are drawn to beliefs that feel good, offer comfort and predictability, and become part of who they are. When science offers a conflicting view, the belief wins.
The remedy is education and critical thinking: scientific literacy and a culture that values inquiry. But changing one believer’s mind is so unlikely that most of the time it is not worth the effort, and when you do engage, respect and rapport matter more than facts; the how is in the Discourse Protocol. Alone, you are competing with the massive resources of an engagement business model that profits from misinformation, which is why I favor pressing governments to regulate it within the First Amendment rather than ban it. Regulation, not ridicule, is the scalable answer.