I fully agree that people have a right to use tools - particularly tools they make their very own self, as many bot owners do.
I cannot agree I need to know how many bots there are - I don't care. As to whether they are good or bad, well that is determined by how they are used.
I submit that bots voting is bad. I'm 'agin it. I submit on philosophical and political grounds that potentiating bots to vote degrades human agency, and will lead down a slippery slope to places no rational person want to end up.
I personally feel that bots writing posts and comments is bad, but I'm not necessarily certain it's intolerable. Just as having a drone go to the store and pick up my groceries is a beneficial use of a bot, I might be persuaded that having a bot speak my mind for me could be a good thing. I'm far less convinced letting bots be programmed to promote or suppress viewpoints is safe. There's room for discussion there, and I'd like to have it before bots can write well.
As long as bots are tools people use, I think they're fine. When they become stand-ins for people, as in writing posts, or equal to people, as in voting, I reckon they're abusive.
We don't need to enumerate them. We can prevent them from interacting with the blockchain to vote, and post, and we should.
You seem to think we shouldn't. Why shouldn't we?
RE: The Difference Between Promotion and Curation, and Killing All Bots