What an absurdly reductionist viewpoint.
Yes, the invention of the box camera did spur changes in, say, the normative definition of privacy in the public sphere. But in doing so it hardly “leverage[d] resource extraction and control”. And most people concerned about it, even if they didn’t own a camera themselves, certainly had access to other resources.
And what about the pulley or the inclined plane? Come on.
Adding accelerometers to phones had wonderful and (potentially) dangerous consequences, but ridiculous nonsense like his framing makes it harder to make assessment and judgement.
Actually, it did. Maybe not in the ways you'd think on inspection.
Prior to cameras, the only way to get a reliable portrait was to hire a skilled painter -- so cameras transferred extraction and control of portraiture from skilled painters to photographers, which meant the barrier to entry into portraiture got lowered significantly, especially so as the price of cameras continued to drop.
In other words, camera technology democratized the ability to produce representative imagery by significantly lowering the barrier to entry.
I'm trying hard not to use the M word because it usually leads to flaming and not reasonable discussion.
He was fundamentally wrong in how he views capitalist societies -- particularly his ignorance of the middle class and how access by literally anyone to equity and capital markets affects society.
Power always concentrates to a few (the Pareto principle alone assures us of this, not to mention unequal distribution of 10,000 other differentiating characteristics between individuals). The question isn't whether that happens, but how and under what terms. When a middle class of educated business owners and professionals exists, and a government that ensures peaceful rule-of-law, a society looks nothing like anything "M" describes.
Social media technology? 100% political.
Well management technology? 100% a-political.
If your technology is based on funding from a group that has no spine whatsoever (e.g. 99% of ad purchasers out there), then your technology is at the whim of the latest angry tweet.
If your technology is based on funding from a group that is firmly rooted in reality, then nobody cares about politics because they're dealing with something much more important.
"Wells" as in water wells? Or wellness management?