Essentially, anyone who knows about technology will tell you technology is not neutral. From which technologies get developed, which make it to market, which succeed and why - there are always bigger issues at stake. Technologies are affected by and in turn affect the socio-economic ecologies they exist within. Although some downplay this tech non-neutrality it is such a truism that anybody who thinks tech is a neutral tool for either good or bad uses is simply mistaken. Defining the good and bad is problem enough let alone saying the way I use it is only good. But from there it gets way more complicated.
For Christians who wish to use technology uncritically I want to shake them up but for those that use the concept of non-neutrality as some kind of talisman I want to scream 'stop it!'. Search the internet and you will find plenty of examples.
The non-neutrality comes to us largely from the philosophical schools and history of technology writings nothing wrong with that - good academic analysis. But what annoys me is that Christians often take this and keep repeating it, just to support an argument usually that in some way some technology is bad. My problem is we as Christians should understand that NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING is neutral. Sex, technology, food, building temples, not building temples, giving money not giving money, burning offerings not burning offerings, it is all non-neutral in our relationship with God.
Technology is not some special case. If you want to say technology is not neutral then go on and make a decent point. Can I say it anymore clearly.
Besides the point that what we put in our mouths has consequences for our health so we can use this example...
This is what the Almighty says: “These people say, ‘The time has not yet come to rebuild the ’s house.’”
Women descended from plough-users are less likely to work outside the home, to be elected to parliament or to run businesses than their counterparts in countries at similar levels of development who happen to be descended from hoe-users. The research reinforces the ideas of Ester Boserup, an economist who argued in the 1970s that cultural norms about the economic roles of the sexes can be traced back to traditional farming practices. ... Despite a host of changes over the subsequent centuries—such as industrialisation and higher overall rates of female participation in the workforce—the economists find that variations between countries in the fraction of adult women who work outside the home can be explained rather well by the farming practices of their ancestors. This variation is huge. From the Economist in 2011.