It's possible to look at the antagonists of most dystopian fiction and find the noble intentions.
Rayiner's point wasn't that technology intrinsically subverts the social contract; only that some technologists seem to want it to.
I feel like we're talking past one another so I'll shut up after this reply. I think this disagreement comes down to a difference of values and not just how they are implemented.
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.
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?