Expose and Delegitimize "Bad-Faith Actors"

5. Massively Parallel Goals

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

June 20, 2026

Most people involved in public conflict are not bad-faith actors. They are citizens, advocates, officials, or community members trying to defend something they care about. Even when they are angry or mistaken, they may still be acting from sincere concern. Bad-faith actors are different. They deliberately make conflicts worse because escalation serves their interests. As our discussion of conflict profiteers explains, some people and organizations gain money, power, attention, or protection by keeping people frightened and divided.

Bad-faith actors use conflict as a strategy. Some spread false claims, because outrage brings clicks, donations, votes, or followers. Others inflame fear because it helps them dominate a party, movement, or territory. In peacebuilding, these actors are often called spoilers: people who see a settlement as a threat to their own position and therefore try to destroy it. In democratic societies, the same basic pattern can appear in less violent, but still damaging, forms. A public figure may gain visibility by insulting opponents. A media personality may benefit from keeping an audience angry. A foreign or domestic disinformation network may seek advantage by making citizens distrust one another.

Exposure is one of the most important ways to weaken these actors. The goal is not to denounce everyone who disagrees, but to reveal the pattern of conduct. Who benefits when the conflict escalates? Who repeatedly spreads claims after they have been disproven? Who discourages negotiation, demonizes moderates, or punishes people who try to solve the problem? Our materials on bad-faith actors argue that society must learn to recognize these strategies, much as people learn to recognize a con. Once the trick is visible, it becomes much harder to keep using it.

Delegitimization is the next step. This does not mean censorship, revenge, or guilt by association. It means reducing the rewards that make bad-faith conduct attractive. Responsible journalists can refuse to treat performative outrage as serious leadership. Civic organizations can set rules that reward evidence and problem-solving. Funders and donors can ask whether they are supporting constructive advocacy or merely paying for escalation. Platforms can reduce the reach of coordinated manipulation, while still protecting legitimate disagreement. Research on digital polarization, such as this Brookings analysis of social media and polarization, shows both how online systems can amplify actors who have strong incentives to inflame existing divisions, and how they can disempower them.

This goal, however, must be pursued with care. The accusation of “bad faith” can itself become a bad-faith tactic if it is used to silence opponents or avoid hard questions. That is why exposure should be based on evidence, not suspicion. It should focus on conduct, incentives, and repeated patterns. When done well, however, exposing and delegitimizing bad-faith actors helps protect good-faith conflict. It makes room for honest advocates to argue strongly, negotiate when possible, and confront wrongdoing when necessary. In a massively parallel strategy, many people can help by refusing to reward those who profit from turning disagreement into social breakdown.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.