@dan hassan,

In my opinion what you're talking is important but it is not what people mean by the medium is the message. What you're talking is about reinforcement of prejudices (sometimes by accident) in technology. It is a different conversation. The cornerstone of the medium is the message is how new media change society due to the new nature of the medium and not exactly due to its content (which tends to be always the same).

For example photography introduced two important things in the world:

• Instant capture (when compared to painting)
• Fetish for fidelity/realism

In which the whole world became enamored with the idea or value that photography had of portraying reality as it is even though it can't carry nothing but visual representation of something the photographer decided to frame. Another important aspect is the capacity for faithful reproduction. From one negative, you can produce faithful copies of that image. This trend of reproduction was already a thing due to the printing press. But it changed everything because allowed the world to have cheap copies of stuff. Once art is cheap and reproducible, what is the value of art? Once it was the uniqueness of a piece, now it is something else...

What you described is more about the people building tech or using it than the tech itself. In the case of the image recognition. The problem lies in the models used for training, which is a result of lack of foresight by the teams involved.

A more recent case for the medium is the message for me are social networks. We still use them to talk the same shit we used to in letter sections in magazines and by trading postcards and emails. The conversations are all the same. But it destroyed modern democracy, it is wrecking journalism, and it is leading to a post-truth world.