[Genuine Realist]

One can think of "bots" as the message they promote (or suppress in the case of a denial of service attack), or as the service that provides the mechanism of promoting that message (perhaps for a price, or for a particular purpose).

As a message, bots aren't just commerce.  They can be used for purposes for/against your most loved/despised ideal or government.

As a service, bots aren't always just commerce.  For instance, it is alleged that some nation-states maintain or support bot nets.

I do agree that one of the dangers of bots is the anonymous, or even forged, multiple identities.   Democracy is built upon each person having a vote.  A misrepresentation of the number of supporters/detractors for a position has a potential to subvert the democratic process.

I do not consider bots to be like megaphones.  A megaphone has one person speaking into it.  Nor do I consider them like the pages of the NYT, which is also attributed to a particular entity.

Commercial speech does have some First Amendment protections. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...ial-speech

Query, however, whether expressions of opinion in the form of tweets are in any sense instances of commercial speech. 

More to the point is whether Twitter is subject to government regulation of that type. It's going to be (in my opinion)  over the course of time. But probably not yet.

[Genuine Realist]

One can think of "bots" as the message they promote (or suppress in the case of a denial of service attack), or as the service that provides the mechanism of promoting that message (perhaps for a price, or for a particular purpose).

As a message, bots aren't just commerce.  They can be used for purposes for/against your most loved/despised ideal or government.

As a service, bots aren't always just commerce.  For instance, it is alleged that some nation-states maintain or support bot nets.

I do agree that one of the dangers of bots is the anonymous, or even forged, multiple identities.   Democracy is built upon each person having a vote.  A misrepresentation of the number of supporters/detractors for a position has a potential to subvert the democratic process.

I do not consider bots to be like megaphones.  A megaphone has one person speaking into it.  Nor do I consider them like the pages of the NYT, which is also attributed to a particular entity.

Commercial speech does have some First Amendment protections. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...ial-speech

Query, however, whether expressions of opinion in the form of tweets are in any sense instances of commercial speech. 

More to the point is whether Twitter is subject to government regulation of that type. It's going to be (in my opinion)  over the course of time. But probably not yet.