Thinking about this story last night I visualised three axes on which to place technology (probably greatly influenced by Postman and Mumford). The first axis,

Thinking about this story last night I visualised three axes on which to place technology (probably greatly influenced by Postman and Mumford). The first axis, 0 to 1, is the value axis, from "technology is neutral (0)?" to "technology is political (1)?". The second axis is a malevolence/beneficence scale, Technology is either a universal utility, as a tool (1) or a weapon (0) for entirely destructive purposes. Third, is a technology public or private? Public technologies (1) are basically open, accessible science, free for all to create. An example of a "private" technology (0) might be a nuclear power plant, since regardless of state or corporate ownership the average person is unable to make one. Code has enabled a more public face of tech, but that is subtracted from by centralised "cloud" industries. So far all good as a offhand taxonomy for tech... But then the real question is, where does a given person's psychological attitude towards tech lie in that space? Most tech entrepreneurs probably imagine themselves in a neutral/benificent/private cluster. Perhaps free-software advocates would occupy a political/benificent/public cluster. Musk claimed to be outraged that 'his creation is not being used for good'. But I think that's hypocritical posturing. Musk looks a lot like someone whose stance on technology is about private power and clusters in the political/benevolent/private corner of the cube. Or maybe worse; he's pissed of that someone else is using his weapon to fight wars other than his own campaign for world domination.