I sometimes wonder if the "technology is morally neutral" argument holds up. Some questions I ask myself Certain technologies force a certain world view. If t

I sometimes wonder if the "technology is morally neutral" argument holds up. Some questions I ask myself Certain technologies force a certain world view. If that world view is not moral, then the technology is not moral. If a technology is inherently dehumanizing, how is it moral? Does the technology have room for forgiveness, repentance, and redemption? If not, how is it moral? The counter-counter arguments is to move up the stack. "computers are neutral, but a computerized system which does X is immoral. So we can only have computerized systems which do Y". But what if the problem is that computerizing something inherently makes it immoral? A toy example: When something becomes a metric, it loses its value as a metric ("lines of code", "rankings of universities", ...). Computerizing things makes them standardized metrics.