This is established by the fact that according to Bimber, the determinism of hard technology is undefined due to the uncontrolled consequences arising from it that even the defined deterministic path, sequence or direction of the technology could not have. anticipated. To this end, nuances of “soft” technological determinism hold that technology is at least partially autonomous; that it is responsible for determining some, but not all, social effects. This is also echoed by Lawson, who states that from Marx's perspective it would be the case that some, but not all, technological developments would provide the necessary impetus for social development. However, they do not inherently influence all aspects of social development, as accounts of “hard” technological determinism maintain. A perfect example is the hard-liners' argument that with the invention of the automobile the environment would become cleaner because it would be rid of horse manure, a product of the past. This argument is magnanimously echoed by Mackenzie and Wajcman, who argue that technology can only be understood as the product of social preferences, bureaucratic mandates and economic pressures. The importance of this claim is that the social formation of technology advocates is primarily concerned with the social forces that give rise to certain technologies, rather than the social effects that result from certain technologies. The social constructivist aspect of social formation of technology theory is an excellent way to demonstrate how technologies emerge inadvertently from procedures of choice and negotiation between relevant social groups to realize the social interests they seek.