The issue here has not much to do with the replication crisis. It has to do with the fact that most people who use bits of information to make their point more convincing don't care whether that information is true or not. They are not seeking to convince the other side of the issue, they are seeking to convince other believers.

It is literally like this:

- someone makes a point that questions your believe

- you google a phrase that would come in studies that proof otherwise

- you take the first thing that looks promising, and fly over the first page, and paraphrase a good bit in a way that makes your point

- you publish it as part of a post, youtube video or whatever

- danger averted

Bad studies play into this, but even if the studies are good, or bad studies that have been retracted the same thing happens. James Wakefield who originally published the "combined vaccines cause autism study" after patenting a non-combined measles vaccine had his study retracted by the lancet soon after publication. He lost his status as a doctor etc. And you will still find people who use his study as a source.

Of course studies whose outcome collide with our believe systems are always harder to trust than those who validate it — but this is why you look at the methods used and other indicators that might make that study bogus.