I think the author is right that top-down technical solutions to social problems don't work. Their examples are compelling, and more come to mind. As you say, t

I think the author is right that top-down technical solutions to social problems don't work. Their examples are compelling, and more come to mind. As you say, though, that doesn't extend to the argument that technology and social good are unrelated. Companies reasonably can (and, one could argue, should) choose their investments and priorities based on their social effects and other distant externalities. There are also problems, like the social effects of climate change, that can be effectively addressed, at least partially, with technical solutions. The much more interesting question for me is whether it's ethical to invest in technologies that will cause social change, even if those changes are highly likely to be negative in the short term. The default silicon valley answer to that would be yes, but a broad range of other people would say no. Both have rational arguments. If you look at the social effects of the industrial revolution (or the green revolution, or the enlightenment) there's a lot of short-term negative for a lot of people and some enduring problems for some groups of people.