[vrganj]

It doesn't indicate intent. It indicates incentives and outcomes.

A system is what a system does, not what a system is claimed to stand for.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The original phrase, "the purpose of a system is what it does", was coined as a contrast to people saying "the purpose of this system is X" even though it consistently fails to achieve X. It does not make sense to look at an arbitrary problem and declare that the system is that problem or exists to produce the problem.

[trumpdong]

Facebook does this consistently though.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Bars consistently serve people who will later drive home drunk, and yet it would be wrong to say the purpose of a bar is to cause drunk driving.

[vrganj]

If you reread my comment, you will see that I never said the purpose was what it does.

That word choice was not by accident, it wasn't meant to be a simple paraphrase.

I said a system is what it does. In this case bars are the cause of drunk driving, just like in my parallel. Not on purpose. But by effect.

You mismatched my statement to the famous quote, then pointed out it didn't fit. I know that one doesn't. That's why I said something different.

My entire point is that identity and effect are not the same as purpose.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't understand your point. Identity and effect are not the same as purpose, but identity also isn't the same as effect. If a news headline read "Bars are encouraging foreigners to drive drunk", and the contents were just that the reporter compiled a list of 14 foreigners who were served alcohol when the bartender knew they drove there, I would say that's similarly misleading.

[vrganj]

What if it was a list of 14 foreigners that were given money for drinking even though the bartender knew they drove there?