Even in 2017 we still have engineers crowing about how technology is value neutral, it's a-political, and how any attempt to claim otherwise is putting artificial restraint on something they see as pure and detached from society.

It's an entirely bullshit mode of thinking which needs to be challenged in the here-and-now if we're to have any hope of a bright future, rather than the immiserated neo-feudal hellscape we're currently heading towards.

I am in the end for your argument - that is, I think you are generally correct that we need to consider the context, but I am at a loss as to how to regular that sentiment, because the 'care about context' sentiment gets to its absurd extremes REALLY FREAKISHLY FAST.

Example: I can say with some ease that Uber has gone rogue and is bad in it's context, but I am not joking or hyperbolizing about the previous suggestion about coal and free energy. What about radical lifespan increase? Rich people will start living 5x as long as poor people, making them functionally different SPECIES from us, especially in the context of humanity currently (they'd be like elves to our low men). Our alternates are reasonably scarce - we can push for regulation, but seeing as the regulators are captured by private interests at present, THAT has AT LEAST as much possibility to run amok and extend beyond those of us who push to begin it as our science/technology does!

So neo-feudal hellscape or no, I assert right back at you: technology and science are value neutral, or even automatically value positive by virtue of increasing knowledge, and this argument is detached from "we need to regulate the stupid crap Uber/whoever else is up to," that you're making. Fighting the argument you want to fight here merely leads into a rat's nest of impossible options. I say stand above that and regulate behavior before regulating technology, and where that is impossible, adapt to new reality and/or revolt, because getting lost in squirrel fantasy rat's nest of regulatory oversight on what technology is even allowed to HAPPEN isn't going to prevent that hellscape - it'll speed our descent into it.

But your sentiment doesn't occur anywhere in the first 15 paragraphs of the article. In effect, your two sentences make a better argument than 15+ paragraphs from the article.

I'm criticizing the ARTICLE, not necessarily the viewpoint. The article is poorly written in my opinion.

The article certainly suffers from __that__ kind of long-winded (some call it long-form) writing.

“The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking ... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”

Re neo feudal helscape isn't that the brexit the rich news paper owners want ?

This attitude reminds me of how bankers talked right before the crisis. I don’t intend to call you out specifically. It’s a common refrain in tech. But a shift has happened and people are pissed because an industry is deciding to rationalise away responsibility for bad things that happened as a result of its products. That’s driving the perception, probably warranted, that we have lost our ability to self-regulate.

I don't really care about Ruskie ads, but if it makes society start to notice that these platforms can be used against us, then they might start seeing the more insidious natures of the platforms too.

But in the great scheme of things (with Facebook cooperating with proper authorities) that's a moot issue since Zuckerberg seems to be "on our side" there.

Isn't the very idea that it matters where Zuckerberg's allegiances lie terrifying?

Additionally, the notion that "proper authorities" are a response to propaganda would be comical if it wasn't treated so seriously.