> A particular medium is not (necessarily) to blame. Even the proliferation of what can be perceived as low quality examples of a medium isn't purely to blame. A large part of it is in how you interpret it.
Suppose we were to say, “Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.” Or, “The smallpox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines their value.”
I would agree? Apple pie is pretty good for lunch, but if a clown is throwing one at your face it might not be. Smallpox sucks when it's uncontrolled, but the small amount kept for vaccines is probably a good thing.
I understand your point that some things are worse than others (for humans), but I think it also completely ignores the fact that we don't (usually) think of smallpox as a tool as much as something that happens. Kind of like how we don't consider a tornado a tool.
This idea doesn't seem very useful to me, given that specific things tend to be used in a limited number of specific ways.
Sure, we can imagine a theoretical beneficial use for almost any object. However, we shouldn't be blind to the fact that certain things tend to cause more harm, even when we try to prevent it.
Note, I'm not saying how exactly we should respond to more dangerous objects, I'm just saying we should not falsely claim that they aren't dangerous.
Suppose we were to say, “Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.” Or, “The smallpox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines their value.”
- Marshall McLuhan