Democracies survive on the ability of people to disagree without destroying the social fabric that binds them. However, in an era marked by rising mis- and disinformation, our collective capacity to navigate disagreement is deteriorating. While polarization is often viewed as a problem of belief, the deeper issue is that disinformation is changing the very way people argue, listen, and respond to one another. It is eroding what might be called democratic conflict competence, the civic skill set that allows diverse societies to debate with honesty, restraint, and mutual respect.

Recent work has shown that fact-checking alone cannot repair these fractures. Although facts matter, they do little to rebuild the emotional, relational, and interpretive skills that healthy disagreement requires. In other words, disinformation harms democracy both by distorting truth and by weakening the abilities citizens rely on to handle conflict constructively.

The Hidden Cost of Disinformation: Why Disagreement Is Breaking Down

Political disagreement is not inherently dangerous. In fact, when grounded in shared democratic norms, it strengthens decision-making by forcing societies to weigh competing evidence, confront blind spots, and refine policy choices through debate. The problem, however, emerges when disinformation exploits identity, which inevitably informs perspective, to turn disagreement into a test of group loyalty.

Disinformation campaigns often rely on narratives that make disagreements feel like existential threats rather than differences of opinion. Instead of “you and I see this issue differently,” the message becomes “your position threatens our place, our safety, or our way of life.”

When disagreement feels like an attack on belonging, people shut down and stop listening. They interpret opposing views as hostility and an enemy rather than a perspective. Disinformation exploits this vulnerability by framing political issues in ways designed to provoke defensiveness and moral outrage.

The result is more intense disagreement, and disagreement feeling unsafe.

These dynamics break down the micro-level interactions that democratic societies rely on. Everyday conversations with neighbours, co-workers, or family members become charged with suspicion. As nuance becomes harder to express and good faith becomes harder to assume, the space between “agree” and “enemy” begins to collapse.

How Disinformation Reshapes Conflict Behaviours

Modern disinformation thrives on emotional escalation. Beyond presenting false claims, it shapes how people respond to those claims by activating identity cues and moral pressure points that drive rapid, reactive conflict.

One common tactic is to frame political issues through narratives that manipulate fear or indignation. These narratives encourage snap judgments and emotional responses rather than reflective engagement. As a result, people become more prone to absolutist positions and less able to consider context or alternative interpretations.

Another tactic is to exploit ambiguity. When information environments are chaotic or saturated with claims that appear authoritative, individuals often rely on emotional reasoning. They become more drawn to information that affirms existing beliefs and more hostile toward information that appears to challenge them. This encourages a cycle in which disagreement hardens, empathy narrows, and curiosity fades.

Over time, these behaviours become a habitual response. People expect conflict, so they prepare for conflict and assume the worst of others. In this environment, the social skills that make disagreement possible, such as listening generously or revising one’s beliefs, begin to erode.

The Algorithmic Environment: Why Digital Spaces Reward the Worst Forms of Disagreement

Digital spaces magnify these problems through what they promote and through how easily they allow people to misunderstand one another. Online debates unfold without tone, shared context, or the subtle cues that guide face-to-face conversation. A sentence meant as curiosity can read as condescension, and a clumsy phrase can be taken as hostility. These misinterpretations quickly harden into assumptions about a person’s motives or identity, creating fertile ground for disinformation to take hold.

Although algorithms do circulate emotionally charged content, the deeper issue is that these platforms encourage people to interact with fragments of each other — isolated statements, clipped replies, or screenshots detached from their original setting. As bystanders watch these exchanges, they often only see the worst version of the “other side” that is stripped of nuance or good faith. This fuels a cycle in which people feel justified in responding more harshly, assuming hostility where none was intended.

Public visibility, rapid reply mechanics, and the pressure to respond quickly all compound the problem. Rather than slowing down to interpret what someone means, users are nudged toward performing certainty, wit, or outrage. Disagreement becomes less about working through an issue and more about signalling allegiance to an audience.

In this environment, disinformation succeeds because it fits neatly into a communication space already primed for misreading and mistrust. When citizens try to engage under these conditions, even sincere attempts at dialogue can be reframed as evidence of hidden agendas or bad character. The quieter, more careful voices often withdraw, leaving the stage to those most willing to escalate conflict.

Implications for Democracy: Loss of Trust, Civic Withdrawal, and Vulnerability to Foreign Influence

This erosion of democratic conflict competence has significant consequences for civic life. When people experience disagreements as personal attacks, trust in democratic institutions declines. This includes institutions of government such as legislatures, courts, and public agencies, and the democratic practices those institutions rely on, such as negotiation, compromise, and the assumption of good faith among participants. As that trust erodes, voters become more cynical about the motives of others and more skeptical of compromise, and policy debates shift away from substantive problem-solving toward performances designed to signal loyalty to one’s side.

Civic withdrawal is another consequence. As political engagement becomes emotionally exhausting, many individuals, especially those who hold more moderate or mixed views, choose to disengage from political discussion altogether. Their reluctance to enter charged debates means that the conversational space is increasingly occupied by those with the strongest, most polarized positions. When these moderate voices recede, extreme voices dominate the conversation, creating the illusion of deeper division than exists and reinforcing polarization.

Foreign actors also recognize these vulnerabilities. Disinformation campaigns that target democratic cohesion often rely on narratives that weaponize disagreement itself. Rather than simply spreading false claims, they attempt to deepen social divides by encouraging conflict that feels personal, emotional, and intractable. Democracies that cannot manage internal disagreement become more susceptible to external manipulation.

Rebuilding Conflict Competence: Civic Disagreement Literacy, Platform Design, and Community Models

If disinformation is eroding the civic skill of disagreement, rebuilding democratic conflict competence requires strengthening both information systems and the social contexts where people learn to engage.

A key step is integrating civic disagreement literacy into schools, universities, and public agencies. Programs can extend media literacy into interpersonal competence by teaching practical skills such as recognizing manipulative language, noticing when identity is being triggered, interpreting multiple perspectives, and practicing slower, more reflective reasoning.

Reinforcing conflict capacity also demands changes to the digital platforms where most disagreement now occurs. Regulators can require algorithmic impact assessments, mandate design features that slow political exchanges during high-conflict moments, provide contextual cues when sensitive topics trend, and reduce the reach of accounts repeatedly using manipulative tactics. These measures can curb structural incentives for hostility without suppressing dissent.

Societies also need spaces where disagreement can be practiced safely. Deliberative councils, citizens’ assemblies, and facilitated cross-partisan forums allow people to engage across difference without online performativity. Such settings can build trust, reduce misperceptions, and encourage constructive engagement over time.

Together, these efforts would restore the conditions that allow citizens to disagree without seeing one another as adversaries, helping ensure that democratic conflict remains a source of strength rather than division.

Any views or opinions expressed in articles are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the NATO Association of Canada.

Photo retrieved from The Economist.