This is an extremely dangerous (and quite frankly stupid) way of thinking. Discourse is discourse, regardless of how you feel about it. When people feel as thou

This is an extremely dangerous (and quite frankly stupid) way of thinking. Discourse is discourse, regardless of how you feel about it. When people feel as though "bad" faith discourse needs to be controlled through curation, censorship, or through some other means, you end up with idiots like Twitters Parag Agrawal saying things like "Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation." https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-stage-twitters-cto-on-misinformation/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-s... The "endgame" of "bad faith" communication is the endgame of your freedom of speech and expression. I agree that people ought to be more compassionate and open-minded, both on the internet and in real life, but I am in no position to control what another person thinks or says, and I'm certainly not in a position to make the judgement of what "good" or "bad" faith discourse is. No one is. This entire article is buzzword trash, using terminology such as "post-truth" and statements such as "Seeking to understand others and communicate honestly is an essential democratic virtue".