I actually have a reversed view of what you say about good/bad faith. I think bad-faith communicators are a group small enough that if enough people actually had the ability to have meaningful discussions (which requires being able to focus on the communicative intent behind the words), then bad-faith communicators would be left without targets. I don't think the biggest obstacle to meaningful discussion is a lack of good faith or excess of bad faith or available technologies, but rather that communication is hard and most people suck at it, making it basically a game of confusion. I mean, for most topics we only come up with "rational" arguments in order to try to validate our own perspectives, but rarely think rationally about them. We have feelings and impressions, accumulated through our life experience, which help us develop our "intuition"... and I value intuition very highly, but it's also very often very wrong, and I personally find that almost everyone practices communication as a very lousy rationalization game of attaching bad arguments to honest intuitions. Large scale consensus is not possible under this situation, and in my opinion, changing this requires far more than good faith.