We expect normal users to be prone to error, grammar mistakes, bias, sympathies, and conversational tendencies. We expect bots to attempt to follow instructions to the best of their abilities. A bot's behavior is more observably coherent, it holds pattern and expectation. When we are surfing social media, bots inherently don't incite the dramas which human nature can. They can be programmed to, but that's because it's still following instructions to mimic humans and incite human emotions.

Programmers of social media platforms that intentionally design their systems and interfaces allowing for negative impacts are responsibly even though in a way it is their job and money maker. It connects with my 2.2.3 comment about means. In a vise-versa perspective, should companies be held responsible for designing social interactions that cause damage to society for a living? Users are the pawns but the developers are the players in this structure.

I find throughout life that character and intention may not align completely with the consequence. Humans are complicated individuals and unless you are the one who is responsible of the action, thought, or intent, you won't understand to the full capacity of all the information you need to make a fully-educated justification. I do not agree with the idea that the ends justify the means. It might be meant for a positive end, but that is basically the backbone of any tragic villain arc. On the flip side, what are the morals behind a bad intent done with good, or legal means? Can we kill a bunch of people for the greater good? Or cheat the system unfairly without breaking any laws?