Ullman's book probably doesn't oversimplify like that, but the title of the article alludes to it.
What I would like to know is, what are some good examples of industries that are doing the right thing, that could be used to guide the way forward for tech companies?
I'm very skeptical that there are any industries that have successfully self-policed in this way. But there are many examples of industries that have exploited shared resources and human weaknesses for a quick profit, and inflicted lasting harm in the process: oil, tobacco, intensive farming, fashion, cars, guns, advertising. (And just like social media, most of those have their good points too!)
Tech and social media in particular is an outlier because it's so successful, but even so it's not totally unique -- the economic and social media effect of oil is massive too.
One possible positive example that occurs to me is nuclear weapons. They could have proliferated massively, but so far they haven't quite. Those weapons are developed by states rather than corporations, though.
I really object to the stereotype of socially-awkward programmers being to blame for everything, because we don't understand how real squishy humans work. The problems we face are the same ones that have faced every highly successful and transformative industry. They're at the root of business and capitalism.
The publications generally regarded as the top, auch as The Economist, the New York Times, and, until this year, The Wall Street Journal: they are not catering to the lowest instincts. When they have made mistakes (somebody will inevitably bring up Judith Miller), they have self-corrected, with new policies, and by firing people.
I also wouldn’t consider the wish for „more humanities in tech“ as an attack on you personally, or any single person. In fact, Google, Apple, and many smaller companies have an excellent track record on many issues. Their leadership actually has an appreciation for non-Technology issues far better than most companies’. Yet the example of Apple engineers preparing to go to jail to protect their customers stands out, because others (Yahoo, AT&T) so eagerly cooperated to intrude on customers’ privacy.
I do worry, though, that it's being degraded by the widespread removal of the firewall between the news side and the advertising side of the business.
You say that as though technology isn't part of the political process.
If the last few years have taught us anything it's that the general population is not a fan of the existing banking laws. But that hasn't resulted in reform because the banks and law enforcement agencies have undue disproportionate political power and prevent that reform.
Technologies that can disrupt the balance of power that keeps the broken status quo aren't apolitical, but that doesn't make them dirty. They're a tool that can be used for good or for ill. It's not as if the other side isn't using their own tools. AES didn't exist in 1950 but neither did ISMI catchers, room 641A, the Utah Data Center, always-on surveillance devices in everyone's pocket, etc.
And resisting government overreach with maths is a whole lot cleaner than doing it with bullets and IEDs, which are also part of politics.