Well, in general, there is a very strong mythology with technophiles in general and here in particular. It is the mythology that we should further technological progress because, well, "because!"

Unfortunately, this mythology is becoming exceptionally maladaptive in modern society but we can't see it because it is so deeply ingrained.

It is so deeply ingrained because there are many ways in which technology has made life better, both for the technophile and the average person.

Admittedly, there are many harms as well. I can't say whether one outweighs the other, and perhaps it is because the technophile often avoids many of the involved harms that it becomes too easy for many to overlook them or play down the impact.

It is a difficult question indeed, and it depends also on the following: are we measuring the developments of today by how they will affect the world in 10 years or 100? Most people seem to agree that the latter is the more logical measure, yet we operate as if we are using the former.

My biggest complaint is the tendency to conflate change with progress. Perhaps I'm something of a luddite, but in the last ten to fifteen years or so, I have seen plenty of change, but whether it has been beneficial is often hard to suss out.

It seems rather uncontroversial now that social media is detrimental to teen mental health (and I really don't think it's limited to teens). From the start I saw reasoned arguments that this sort of technology was deleterious for a few reasons, but the counterargument I usually saw here was, "yeah, but look at how much Facebook pays developers... and they contribute to open source". Two of the most prestigious of companies here, the F and the G in FAANG are purely advertising companies (and the others have plenty of it as well); what are they doing but trying to manipulate you into buying things you probably don't need? Obviously the pay is attractive, but is that how anyone but a psychopath wants to spend their career?