You shouldn’t be paying any form of investor to pretend they can see into the future.

True, usually index funds outperform active investors, but there are special cases (third point below):
cnbc.com/…/heres-when-active-mutual-funds-tend-to…

• Investors generally fare better in index mutual funds and exchange-traded funds versus their actively managed counterparts.
• The average investor pays about five times more to own an active fund relative to an index fund. This makes it tougher for active funds to outperform index funds, after fees.
• However, the lowest-cost active funds tend to beat the average index fund in categories like junk bonds, foreign stock and global real estate. - … A company isn’t affected by whether a fund invests or does not invest in them.

False. When you buy existing shares, they’ll see the increased demand and issue more shares, making more money from investors after you. Same as when you buy a stolen item, the thief reacts to increased demand by stealing another one.

… responsible funds are just for show …

Those “responsible” ESG-labeled funds (Environmental, Social And Governance) are too lax for modern investors’ thirst for good. We need tighter criteria. Someone here said tailored ethical funds exist: lemmy.world/comment/15070231

… donate the money to charities instead.

Good, but unsustainable. You can grow power by growing money in benefit corporations, such as Mozilla.