In a more primitive time, would it be "scary" to suggest that through technological advancements like agriculture, writing, and calendars we could achieve a better, more just society?
Rayiner's point wasn't that technology intrinsically subverts the social contract; only that some technologists seem to want it to.
Specifically, you seem to hold a notion of a social contract: a concept that I reject. Subverting a "contract" which has been forced upon me and to which I never agreed sounds like a noble endeavor to me, but I'm sure you'd be repulsed by the idea.
Given our starkly different motivations, I believe the best outcome either of us could hope for in a debate is that we both remain reasoned and civil, as there's probably little chance of winning the other to our side.
Democracy sucks. But you know what sucks more? Everything else.
Corrupt power structures may have finally optimized for dominating a democratically organized society and we should be at least philosophizing about a favorable post-democracy world. I.e., what's more "democratic" than democracy?