But then you missed my point. If I ask "Are deserts really always dry?" (in a context where you can reasonably assume that I understand the concept of a desert) and you answer "Yes they are, except on occasions where they aren't", then what you actually meant was "No, they aren't. Sometimes they can be flooded, but most of the time they are dry".

I did not mean to ask "Is technology sometimes neutral?", but rather "Is technology always neutral, and in this case, is this particular technology neutral?". I did not write all that, but I assumed that it would be inferred from the context. And that, too, is how language works.

Also note that my above reaction was not aggressive. I genuinely find it interesting that they think "technology is neutral" but start their explanation with a sentence that clearly shows that they think technology is not neutral.

No, I did not miss it but told you that people and language don't work that way.

In common language there is no difference between "Yes, almost always, except.." and "No, not 100% always, there are some very rare exceptions". That sounds contradictory at first because one starts with yes and one with no, but both say the same thing and people are perfectly fine with shortening "90% true" to true.

The reason for that is that your question is kinda trivial to answer and kills any discussion for no gain of insight. "Is A literally, always B with absolutely no exceptions?". No, unless you talk about mathematics you don't get absolute statements.

Ok, let's ignore the language part, I am not sure what you were trying to contribute there. But I'd like to get back to this:

> The reason for that is that your question is kinda trivial to answer and kills any discussion for no gain of insight.

Is it, really? What is the trivial answer? Is technology neutral or not? You seem to acknowledge that there are exceptions, so... does that mean that you think that technology is trivially not neutral? Because let me tell you that it is absolutely not a large consensus (to the point where I am genuinely not sure if that is your opinion or not).

But assuming that you agree with me that technology is not neutral, then my point was: maybe those who worked on that technology should have thought more before doing it. And there I was expecting constructive comments like "the technology itself is really useful for [saving lives / helping biodiversity / put something nice here], and unfortunately some abuse it with deepfakes". Because if we all "kinda trivially" agree on the fact that the technology behind deepfakes is evil, then maybe we should do something about it. Like teach ethics to engineers.

Oh, you are playing word games on purpose. I gave you the benefit of doubt, but now see that this was sadly unfounded. Disappointing, but have a nice day anyway.

I am not. I think that technology is not neutral, and I believe that saying "it is neutral, except when it is not" means that it is not neutral. I don't care how often it is not neutral. If it can ever be not neutral, it means that you should always question it, because obviously it would not be ethical to build evil technology.

In this case, I don't see what good comes from the technology that enables deepfakes, but I would love to be enlightened.

I still don't understand what your opinion is, though.