There are also millions of people with low effort accounts that mostly just retweet stuff, often precisely the bot-amplified political topics that show up in their feed. Those people are going to whine just as loudly about censorship as the people kicked off because someone reported them.

It's not like bot operators can't change handles or like the flags which would really catch them "engages on $politicalwedgeissue and amplifies "$particularpoliticalcause" are uncontroversial

It's not at all trivial, and there's a surprising amount of academic research on whether it's even possible.

Take the most extreme case: a bunch of new accounts with long-numbered names posting identical political messages. It turns out that many of these have (unique!) real people behind them. They're not bots, they're coordinated people who are part of a campaign that's either grassroots (sign up and make ourselves heard!) or AstroTurf (I've been paid by a PR company to...). Are these excluded as bots? After all, a lot of PR accounts are paid to post.

Many other 'bot' accounts have scheduled high-volume posting, but are directly operated by a single human; they may be spammers, but they aren't anything other than who they claim to be.

What about political clubs brigading? If I get my mates to set up alts and frequently shitpost about politicians we dislike, is that a bot army, or privacy-friendly political activism?

In the end, you just have to take a view and decide what you're prepared to accept.

you do realize that "word2048962062" is the format of username suggested to you when you signup, right?