While I don't generally agree with the ethics of how the research was done, I do, personally, think the research and the data could be enlightening. Reddit, X, Facebook, and other platforms might be overflowing with bots that are already doing this but we (the general public) don't generally have clear data on how much this is happening, how effective it is, things to watch out for, etc. It's definitely an arms race but I do think that a paper which clearly communicates "in our study these specific things were the most effective way to change peoples' opinions with bots" serves as valuable input for knowing what to look out for.
But what does the study show? There was no control for anything. None of the data is valid. To clarify: how does the research team know the bots were interacting with people and not other bots?
I agree that the study was performed unethically and should not be published but observational studies are totally fine things to do.
A lot of research is "hey we looked at stuff and found this data that wiggles its eyebrows at some idea so we should fund more rigorous study design in the future." An individual paper does not need to fully resolve a question.
The reason not to publish this work is because the data was collected unethically and we don't want to reward or incentivize such work. Nothing to do with the quality of the data itself.
