This brings us to a question concerning politics. On the one hand, there is a social impact of technology and products it allows on society. That impact is, in almost every case, a mixed bag, some of it is positive, some of it is negative, and some of it is unclear. On the other hand, there is a political impact of ownership or marketing of that technology on society, which depends not on the technology itself, but on the balance of political power and the role of business and political lobbies in that balance.
Both aspects must be taken into consideration when discussing social effect of any technology. However, since the social impact of technology itself is for the most part a mixed bad, the political impact is the decisive factor in most circumstances. In this country, business lobbies and right wing groups used ownership of certain technologies, such as automobile or fire arms, as a right wing mobilization strategy aimed to neutralize liberal and left wing political position, and to subvert democratic governance by buying political influence.
For that reason, opposition to political measures favoring these technologies is the only rational strategy the left-of-the center in this country can take, That is to say, any discussion about the technical aspects and social impacts of these technologies is a red herring - an obfuscation of the fact that these technologies are being used as tools for political mobilization for the right. And as such they should be opposed by any means necessary, and any attempt to bring the social or technical consequences into the discussion should be viewed as right wing trolling aimed divide political opponents of the business and right wing interests.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."