[BigBubbleButt]

Technology is only neutral in the sense that guns, nuclear weapons, and neurotoxins are neutral. No, not all technology is the same, and much of it is evil. This loosely falls into the same fallacy of "it can either work or fail, so there's a 50% chance" - you are wildly misrepresenting the space in order to project a stance of neutrality.

I really think what you're saying is just something engineers tell themselves to feel better about what they do. I hear it more often from people at FAANG, defense contractors, and other morally ambiguous places than anywhere else.

Also, if you're the guy building a tool that's oppressing someone, you are the guy building the means to oppress someone. There's nothing neutral about that.

[mellavora]

Disclaimer- I enjoy sport shooting.

Using a gun on another human to defend my family from immediate threat. Moral.

Using a gun on another human to inflict harm on an innocent. Immoral.

Thus "tech is neutral, usage determines morality".

HOWEVER

what if we are in a society where using guns is the normal way to resolve conflict? Where everyone is required to carry a gun at all times and be prepared to use it to defend their family? Is the tech still neutral when it becomes a cornerstone of every interaction?

Not a fanciful example. Think: dueling.

[hiptobecubic]

Well a lot of people would argue that guns are neutral, at least.

But that aside, I do mostly agree. It's nonsense to help produce something that you know will be misused and then absolve yourself of responsibility.

The problem is not that people like this crap, it's that building and selling it is absurdly profitable and people like money. I don't know how you address such a thing other than to have government step in and block it (see GDPR, tracking cookies etc)