In a non-Stack Exchange online community, there is a chatbot that runs with the permission of the administrators. The primary purpose of the bot is to analyze the posts of others and suggest helpful links. Recently, the bot got into some hot water with the community when it posted some links that, while not inherently offensive, were rather offensive in the context of the actual conversation.
To what extent is it reasonable to hold the writers of a bot accountable when their bot engages in insensitive behavior?
I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, bots are imperfect and can't be trained to handle every social scenario with perfect tact and etiquette, but giving bot writers a quick cop out ("My bot isn't programmed to understand trigger warnings, so when it saw 'Trigger warning: soldiers', it had no idea that the OP didn't want a link to a site where they could find their local army recruitment center. I shouldn't be penalized!") also seems unreasonable, as each of us are ultimately expected to reap what we sow and one generally can't "un-offend" someone who has already been offended, regardless of whether one intended to offend or had fully apprised oneself of the social context in which one was posting.
Is it reasonable to be extra-lenient on bot writers whose bots post inappropriate content (giving them more slack than an average "live" user who negligently, carelessly, or ignorantly violates rules or posts content likely to offend), or is it better to judge on content alone, requiring bot writers to either fix their bots or take them off-line under penalty of banning? For example, if the general practice of the moderators is to issue a one-month suspension for ignoring a trigger warning, is it fair to issue such a suspension to a bot writer who fails to add an adequate trigger warning detection script or is a different approach better?