I mean if that's your opinion, no. But that's the thing about art. People will interpret it their own way.
It's not the responsibility of a movie or TV show though to make sure people react responsibly. Movies, TV shows, and even video games are legally protected forms of art for a reason.
Personally, I don't think villains have to be depicted any certain way. Critics of Goblin Slayer complained that the show is bad because the main enemies, the goblins, are simply pure evil beings who delight in nothing but cruelty and suffering and want to rape young women. Why do all the goblins have to be bad? It's racist and genocidal propaganda, right?
I mean disregarding the fact that the goblins are basically a fictional race of supernatural monsters created by dark powers to be their minions of evil and spread cruelty, hate, and suffering, why can't there be a fictional race of creatures that are simply pure evil? Look at any fantasy story and you can find groups or races of purely malevolent beings that simply exist to spread malevolence and there's nothing redeeming about them. Even if you can't accept in-world reasoning for why goblins the way they are, fiction for decades has created evil creatures like this that are just pure evil and are monsters of evil. Wheel of Time has Myrddraal. Lord of the Rings has the Orcs. There are no "good orcs" in Lord of the Rings. All we know is that the dark powers corrupted and twisted elves and turned them into Orcs.
Sure, what if the orcs were misunderstood? What if there were orcs capable of evolving and becoming good? If someone wants to write that story, I think that's fine. Tolkien didn't write that story though. It doesn't make Tolkien racist. It doesn't make him problematic. It doesn't make Kumo Kagyu racist that he did a fantasy story where there are simply dark beings who exist as dark powers and want to create hatred and suffering.
But some creators want to do the opposite. Marvel Studios wants to make Thanos sympathetic. Thanos was less of a mad titan in the movies and more of a pragmatic philosopher. His plan for the universe is actually quite logical. Curb over-population by cutting it all in half. The movies made him less nihilistic, cruel, and sadistic, and less self-loathing. Thanos isn't wishing for failure and oblivion. He's not looking for a way out. He fully believes what he's doing is the right thing to do and is the just thing for everyone. In Infinity War, he could've done a lot worse. He doesn't actively murder and kill all the heroes. He spares a great deal of them and lets the gauntlet do its work.
Now on a personal level, I'm *STILL* ambivalent about the changes that were made to Thanos. I miss the fact that he's obsessed with Lady Death as his mistress and constantly trying and failing to impress her. I miss that Thanos hates himself and deep down wants to fail. But this version of Thanos was changed to make him more palatable to the masses. Audiences appreciated movie Thanos more, so who am I to argue? In my opinion, the more traditional comic version of Thanos was no less complex than his movie counterpart, but his motivations and personality were vastly different.
So regarding Joker, a lot of what goes on with social media is garbage to me. There isn't healthy debate and discussion anywhere. It's all just name-calling, buzzwords, handing out "receipts" and all this other dumb business.
But none of that to me is a good reason why the movie shouldn't be made. It's not the job of a movie or TV show to police how people react to it. In my opinion, none of that is a valid reason for why the movie shouldn't exist, whether it's good or bad.