> Perhaps your argument is in good faith, and factually correct, but for one of you there may be 10,000 bots. ... How can you make a good faith argument [in this scenario?]

In exactly the same way urban dwellers made cogent, good faith arguments back in the late 1800s when one could never hope to keep up with the pace of printed material available for sale, and there were far, far more people speaking in the area than one could have a conversation with in a day, let alone half a year.

  Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.

is from the 1700s. I expect there have been variations on that sentiment [0] expressed for as long as there have been humans capable of using spoken language.

> How do you address lies with truth if the distribution of lies and truth is uncontrollable?

The same way you have for the last two-hundred and fifty years.

> The example of Russia has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

I'm aware. That's why I dragged the conversation back on topic.

> This quite a reach. [sic]

When put into its surrounding context, it is a plain statement of fact and reasonable assessment of the situation.

[0] and the essay that contains that sentiment