I feel any reasonable counterargument basically comes down to section 5.1: the math of inconvenience.

Consider the Amazon rainforest. Intuitively, many people condemn giant logging companies for the deforestation- but DON'T condemn the impoverished Brazilians who work for them. Because they 'have no choice' or in other words the inconvenience to them personally of saving the rainforest is way too high. But the logging company is rich, and they could choose to save the rainforest at merely a modest cut to profit margins. So we judge them.

In the same way, if a poor hermit farmer in the mountains is raising a small amount of chickens and cows under objectively miserable conditions in order to feed his family, surely we would ordane that just the same as we do the lioness killing and eating gazelles alive in order to feed her cubs? I can imagine a world in which everyone has such a small and miserable farm to provide for themselves, and the population of this world is so huge that the total sum of animal misery was the same as with modern factory farming. In this case, how can factory farming replacing such individual farms and helping to lift humans out of poverty be any worse?

I think it would come back to section 5.1. Poor individual farmers are spared judgement, as the cost to their lives to improve the conditions of animals is too great. But the average american going to the grocery store to buy sliced ham from the factory is essentially too rich- the inconvenience of avoiding animal products is is now too small to justify continuing to consume them. If they continue to do so, it implies they are willing to cause great harm in exchange for minor convenience- which most of us consider immoral.