Yes. In the same way that Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman have described our media as being or shaping the contents of the messages we send, our technologies and processes shape the way we live, act, and view the world around us.

Take military drones, for instance. People are not concerned about drones because they can be used to kill each other; we have been killing each other for millennia. What makes drones concerning is the relative ease and safety with which they allow us to kill each other. We no longer have to risk the lives of our sons and daughters to wage war in far-off lands; we can do the same from the comfort and safety of a bunker.

What does this mean? We are risking less when we wage war. Waging war is easier. This makes us much more likely to be warlike. What we previously may not have seen as a worthy cause for risking the lives of our troops may yet be seen as a worthy cause for risking our money, in the form of UAVs, robotics, ammunition, etc. On the side of the attacker, war becomes more about spending money than risking lives. That is a big difference.

Moreover, these changes have consequences for the people war is waged against as well as innocent bystanders. An occupying soldier is less likely to target and execute a civilian than a soldier piloting a drone from far away. Innocents are much easier to mistake for insurgents on a computer screen.

The psychic distance between two people is far larger when they are separated by digital rather than physical space, meaning less empathy is involved. A reduction in empathy makes it easier to risk the lives of the people you intend to ignore or protect. This is the same reason people are so mean to each other on the Internet.

Another slightly more recent philosopher who has taken up this discussion is Peter-Paul Verbeek, with his book "What Things Do." Only "slightly more recent" because it's already from back in 2005:

http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-02539-5.html

The psychic distance between two people is far larger when they are separated by digital rather than physical space, meaning less empathy is involved. A reduction in empathy makes it easier to risk the lives of the people you intend to ignore or protect. This is the same reason people are so mean to each other on the Internet.

I agree, but also think it's kind of a double-edged sword in a way, because the internet also brings distant people more together. This is nothing new of course, movies and TV were closing distant gaps long before it: ignoring the valid criticisms of Live Aid for a second, people got motivated to do something because they empathised with distant people thanks to this tele-vision.

Similarly the internet has been a boon for niche interest communities that would have either never gotten off the ground, or in the case of older traditions died out if the enthusiasts wouldn't have been able to find distant people with similar interests online. The older mass-medias homogenized society because they were top-down, but I firmly believe the internet is our best technological bet for bringing back cultural diversity, paradoxically by connecting everyone globally.

Take with a grain of salt. Especially the accusations that Moses is a racist and that his parkways have politics are not only gratuitous but also false. This makes for a clumsy claim ("Yes, artifacts have politics!").

Robert Moses implemented parkways according to the "spec", and did not spend actual effort trying to prevent poor people from going there. His wife was also in charity, IIRC. If you read this then I refer you to "Do Politics have Artifacts"[1] which, as the name suggests, is a brilliant counterpiece.

TLDR: Don't believe what you read, and don't write down what you believe without any factual corroboration.

My claim is based on research done by Professor Lutz Prechelt for a course I can only recommend (slides[2]). It's in german, sadly.

[1] http://www.wzb.eu/2000/met/pdf/do_politics.pdf

[2] http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/inst/ag-se/teaching/V-AWS-2011/1...