There's an implicit political statement in being able to write a simple one line hello world program and run it, using free software and information. Consider the counterfactual world where to even begin programming you have to pay for certification and training or specialized equipment/software. I know paid compilers, proprietary languages and closed specifications exist, but we can still just save print('hello world') to a file and run it using python which is freely available, or even better we can open devtools in our browser and jump into the console and run console.log('hello world') without even installing anything.
Also, the book that popularized "hello world" was very consciously advancing a programming-first pedagogical agenda, as opposed to building up a theoretical foundation first:
> The only way to learn a new programming language is by writing programs in it.
"Proofs" in this sense of the word are things that apply to mathematics and formal systems. Language is squishy. A minimal counterexample is potentially squishy enough to be meaningless.
The definition of political is irrelevant. The result is supertrue. "If even one example of software is not political, then 'all software is political' is false" is true under all admissible values of "political." This is simple logic.
All assertoric claims about the world are either true or false. If they are false they should be rejected. If they are true they should be spoken. Treating factual claims about the world as a partisan psychological litmus test is, in my judgment, morally repugnant. There are four lights.
