This is established by the fact that according to Bimber, hard technology determinism is not defined due to the uncontrolled consequences that arise from it that even the defined path, sequence or deterministic sense of technology they could not have anticipated. In this sense, the “soft” nuances of technological determinism argue that technology is at least partially autonomous; which is responsible for determining some, but not all, social effects. This is further echoed by Lawson, who states that from Marx's perspective, it would be the case that some, but not all technological developments provide the necessary impetus for social development to occur. However, they do not intrinsically influence every aspect of social development, as argued by narratives of “hard” technological determinism. A perfect example is the hardliners' argument that with the invention of the automobile the environment would become cleaner because horse manure, a product of the former, would be eliminated. This 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 significance of this statement 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 the social formation of technology theory is a great way to demonstrate how technologies inadvertently emerge from procedures of choice and negotiation between relevant social groups to realize the social interests they