[schubidubiduba]

You couldn't be more wrong. There's no equal footing when propaganda buys you thousands of bots to parrot what you want on every related post. And there is no ability to "reach everyone" when intransparent algorithms decide what reaches who. Moreover, some kind of content is explicitly suppressed and censored.

[zrn900]

Statistics showed that bots don't change opinions. The only reason why certain establishments scream about them is to explain their election losses. People have very deep biases, and 'randos' blabbering online does not change them. It doesn't matter whether those 'randos' are bots or are real.

[coldtea]

All of that is still irrelevant if the people can still express themselves. The truth can rise on top of bots.

The problem is the algorithm and the "explicitly suppressed and censored" and that's on the governments and corporations. So that's the worst argument for giving the government more control.

[delusional]

> All of that is still irrelevant if the people can still express themselves. The truth can rise on top of bots.

That argument seems easily debunked by pointing at the effectiveness of propaganda, which is in its essence indistinguishable from bots.