Technology is not neutral, part 2.
The first reason we should stop repeating "technology is not neutral" is because it, as we talked about in the last post, is not true. The Department of Defense has its own purposes and agendas; what they make will align with that agenda, and there is nothing about that agenda that is neutral.
The second reason we should strike "technology is neutral" from the list of acceptable phrases is because it's not wise to carry water for what threatens your freedoms and your humanity. Big Tech would love for you to think that they are the saviors of humanity, that it was some gigantic problem not to be able to talk to your acquaintance's cousin from 2nd grade and see the horrors occurring around the globe 24/7 about which you can do literally nothing (and no, "being informed" does not get lead out of the water in Flint, nor does feeling terrible about your materially (over)abundant life put food on any African orphan's whatever they're using for a table), that they are solving big problems that no one has been able to solve before because no one was nearly as smart or as gifted or as appointed by Jesus Himself as them to save the world. It's a lie. It always was. The world is not at your fingertips and it never was. And it does you a great disservice to continue affirming that something not at all intended for your good as "neutral."
The third reason is that it's gaslighting. More and more people are experiencing harm from technology, whether it's a data breach (which, as we talked about in the last post, is par for the course) or cyber bullying which, follows you everywhere you go. They know technology is not neutral and it must be really difficult to continually hear the weapon that wounded them being mindlessly defended all around them. Especially when there really isn't any proof that "technology is neutral." It would be just like the tech industry to originate such a mantra, which has now become almost a chant. And I guess it would be just like groupthink to never question a phrase that maybe sounds logical but hasn't earned its precious place on the pedestal of Untouchable that we keep reaffirming.
The fourth reason is that it's dangerous. We have been lulled into a false sense of security that a) that which more and more aspects of modern life - things like education, employment, even connection - are dependent on is fundamentally neutral, which to many people means harmless and b) we have way more control over this demonstrably not neutral thing than we actually do. I knew someone who earned a PhD in Computer Science summa cum laude works at Google with a fairly high security clearance; he said that whatever level of advancement the public thinks technology has reached, technology is at least 15 years beyond that. How could we mere non-tech peasants possibly have nearly as much control of any of it that we have hypnotized ourselves into believing that we do?
The fifth reason to cut "technology is not neutral" from use is that nothing is actually neutral in life. Everything has a purpose and everyone has agendas and biases. Something may have been invented for a different reason than it is currently being used for, but that doesn't make it "neutral." Wanting something to be neutral doesn't make it neutral. And repeating that something - anything, technology or otherwise - is neutral doesn't make it so.