I did not propose this strawman at any point. I merely said that tech companies should be actively engaged in solving the follow on problems from their creations, not that they shouldn't be allowed to create things.
There are a few limited cases where it makes sense to force companies to deal with negative impacts of their technology -- environmental pollution comes to mind. For the most part, society simply has to adapt to change, because change is the story of human progress. Some jobs may be lost, some people may be inconvenienced, but saddling every innovator with the responsibility for those negative outcomes (yes, that is what it means to demand that they be "actively engaged" in finding the solution) will only serve to freeze our society in time.
The reason the tech industry will almost certainly not wind up with the negative image that financial companies suffer with is that people actually like the things new technologies do. People prefer Orbitz to dealing with travel agents. People prefer email to postal mail. People prefer downloading to buying CDs, and they prefered CDs to vinyl, and they preferred recorded music to buying sheet music and learning how to play an instrument. Despite decades of complaints by all these various affected stakeholders, people still have a positive opinion of the tech industry, because at the end of the day they see tangible improvements in their lives.