[fdavison]

This rationalization is a slippery slope. "Good works" does not entitle one to behave unethically. Seems close to these two from the Ethics Alarms website list of Unethical Rationalizations:

21. Ethics Accounting (“I’ve earned this”/ “I made up for that”) holds that someone can eliminate or mitigate wrong doing by loading up the good side of the ethics ledger so that the bad side looks puny by comparison.

11. The King’s Pass, The Star Syndrome, or “What Will We Do Without Him?”

One will often hear unethical behavior excused because the person involved is so important, so accomplished, and has done such great things for so many people that we should look the other way, just this once. This is a terribly dangerous mindset, because celebrities and powerful public figures come to depend on it. Their achievements, in their own minds and those of their supporters and fans, have earned them a more lenient ethical standard. This pass for bad behavior is as insidious as it is pervasive, and should be recognized and rejected whenever it raises its slimy head. In fact, the more respectable and accomplished an individual is, the more damage he or she can do through unethical conduct, because such individuals engender great trust. Thus the corrupting influence on the individual of The King’s Pass leads to the corruption of others.

https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalization...

[Camillo]

True, but that's not at all what I meant. I'm not saying it's ok for tech to do bad things because of other good things it has done. I am saying that it is wrong to accuse tech, on the whole, of "making race and gender divides worse". Universal access to information benefits everyone, with no distinction of race and gender. World-spanning communication networks help bridge the divide. Cheap electronics make these resources accessible even to the needy (think of the unjustly bemoaned homeless or refugees with smartphones - they are not a luxury, but a vital lifeline). Etc.

Could we do more? Should we do more? Sure. But that doesn't mean others are justified in completely misrepresenting the history of this industry's contributions to the world.