Frankly speaking? It is because the people making people's influence operations the topic of conversation (at the national level) tend to be propagandists themselves. They aren't all that interested in a philosophical discourse trying to get people to make decisions in their own best interest or uncover the truth. They have a narrative and a job to do pushing it and they're perfectly happy to let temporary allies talk without interruption.

There's an interesting debate about whether that is helpful or not; the experience of democracy tends to be that your more at risk of getting high on your own supply when it comes to propaganda more than that an opponent is a risk.