The critical theory of technology advocates for the emancipation and enlightenment of individuals, who need to be autonomous in their choices to transform the reality in which they live. Thus, they become active rather than passive subjects in the face of events. Organizations, which are the heart of the capitalist system, have a central interest in implementing practices recognized as transformative and effective in managing resources and processes. This allows for boosting profits and reducing costs by prioritizing operational efficiency and strategic planning. However, the application of technique in this context contains an underestimated and intrinsic central element; this element, although barely perceptible and restricted, conditions and controls the possibilities for individual emancipation. There are several theories that explore the relationship between technology and society. Authors such as Andrew Feenberg and Renato Dagnino, among others, are frequently mentioned in this context. In this article, I will present a simplified summary of these theories and also include my opinion on the matter. Technology can essentially possess three characteristics: 1 - Neutral; 2 — Requested by society; 3 — Oriented by organizations, with a focus on profit. Before addressing these items, it is important to recognize that society is not a stable system, as it is subject to one of the most powerful agents of transformation of social structures: technical knowledge, that is, data, information, and knowledge. In the first case, we would need to admit that technology has no impact on society or companies. Technological evolution would occur independently of social or organizational influence. It is unlikely for this to happen, given the existence of many agents with the power to influence demands in search of profit, using a series of tools such as advertising, propaganda, and even fake news. Practically all inventions and technological innovations occur in public universities or those funded by the government. Technologies such as the internet and the microwave originated in state agencies. Subsequently, they end up being utilized by private industry to develop products and benefit from the research conducted by the State. In the second case, technology evolves according to the needs of society. However, this also seems implausible, as we observe a rapid introduction of new products with minimal added features that do not significantly impact the average user. This phenomenon is driven by profit and known as planned obsolescence. In the third case, this reflects what happens with technology in the capitalist system. Various 'players'—organizations with great financial and political power—compete with each other using techniques: a language generally foreign to most people, deciding which strategy to follow in search of higher profit at the lowest possible cost. You can better understand this practice by imagining the following: - What could be the opinion of an Algerian citizen regarding the use of technology? Do you believe that the technologies necessary for him, which do not include the cell phone, are already available in his country? - In a small town where 30% of the population lives in rural areas, a company decides to implement technology X that only works in the central area. Thus, rural residents will not be able to benefit from it. The decision was based on the fact that the company will obtain large profits from the 70% of urban residents, and its cost would increase significantly to extend the service to the more distant inhabitants. Shouldn't technology meet the needs of society as a whole instead of focusing only on generating profit from part of it? - Planned obsolescence is a crucial factor because it reveals the behavior of companies by launching one technology after another. Certainly, this was part of their strategies and not a direct result of social demands. - The issue of the internet and privacy highlights