this right here. it's presumed that more or better technology will improve outcome's for society, yet if we observe the world there are technologies that are clearly not so, such as the nuke. but then, digging deeper into the nuance, "society" is always conflated with the state, as all the state is, is a representation of "society" (even though both empirically and logically that hasn't nor ever will be the case, else you wouldn't really need different words for it, now would you?)

plus, digging deeper, there's even technology nowadays that is antagonistic even to the state, so even taking that definition is troublesome.

this is why fundamentally we need to view technology as a multiplier, but a multiplier of what, need's to be questioned and ascertained. we need to consciously understand that most technology isn't "ideologically unbiased", that moral imperative's are usually baked into not only the technology we use, but also the very science they are based on.