The end game of bad faith communication is that noise begins to dominate the channel.
Humans, reacting to this degradation in signal rely less and less on channels that are dominated by noise.
This opens up opportunities for technology to build new channels, which accumulate users, engagement and momentum by supporting good faith communication (truth).
You can have good faith communication over something like the Fermi Paradox or SETI, but the truth is unknown. With a lot of complex social and political realities, the truth is also unknown. Some facts are known, but how they fit whatever grand narrative is in dispute. And with technology, often the dispute centers around preference or what's popular, where for example, which programming language is better doesn't really have a truth value in the general sense.
The truth in this case is that there's no programming language that is better in all regards. There are programming languages that are better at certain things, or that provide certain benefits that are more important for some tasks.
Turning the conversation away from "X language is better" to "X works best than Y to accomplish Z", trying to gauge by how much (e.g.: will it pay of for you to learn X if you only have to do Z once in your lifetime?), etc.. is what I'm understanding "good faith" communication to entail in such situations.
Humans, reacting to this degradation in signal rely less and less on channels that are dominated by noise.
This opens up opportunities for technology to build new channels, which accumulate users, engagement and momentum by supporting good faith communication (truth).
Thus the cycle continues.