The title really is the thesis. But the author backs it up with opinion.
Like many of these articles, the author seems to apply all these adjectives that impute intent. No technology is "inherently oppressive" nor is any technology "ruthless" because machines themselves have no intent. I believe this anthropomorphic sleight of hand is deliberate because the author does get around to changing the topic to "machine-assisted ruthlessness."
He might as well say that "tools are inherently oppressive" because any tool can be used by oppressing humans to enforce their own oppression or ruthlessness. This is the same as opining that knives are inherently violent. The argument is illogical, and an appeal to emotion.
Like many of these articles, the author seems to apply all these adjectives that impute intent. No technology is "inherently oppressive" nor is any technology "ruthless" because machines themselves have no intent. I believe this anthropomorphic sleight of hand is deliberate because the author does get around to changing the topic to "machine-assisted ruthlessness."
He might as well say that "tools are inherently oppressive" because any tool can be used by oppressing humans to enforce their own oppression or ruthlessness. This is the same as opining that knives are inherently violent. The argument is illogical, and an appeal to emotion.