Isn't it far more likely that technology is neither of those things?
Technology is a means to an end.
The trouble comes when that end isn't made explicit. For all the talk about SV people being "visionaries", very few of them seem to articulate what their ideal world looks like, and what part the technology they're building plays in it.
Talking about technology as being "neutral" is nothing more than lazy complacency in the face of the hardness of actually coming up with a compelling vision to sell people and reveal their preferences for possible worlds we could live in.
Instead of going through that step, technologists are happy enough to settle on vaguely defined "needs" and "problems" that society has, without considering what matters, which is which needs and problems you prioritize. Human needs are almost endless, but prioritizing different needs results in completely different global outcomes.
That's also perfectly fine, provided that you're explicit about what outcomes you're aiming for, and you've worked out n-th order effects of those outcomes.
Technological determinism is another cop out that allows technologists to never be held accountable for the world they've helped build with the products they've created.
It's technology itself that is determined by conflicting visions. There isn't one "Technium", there's a whole ecosystem of technological systems resulting from different cultures, visions, teleologies interacting in complex ways.
It seems like Kelly is confusing path dependence for determinism. Sure, some technological paths (plural) lead to logical sequences of technologies being developed. Doesn't mean there's only one path.
P.S. Kinda rambling, posting for discussion more than anything else.