That’s probably a decision better left to a collective decision, but a lot of it is “how” versus “what,” versus “is it worth it.”

For example, networked devices/IOT are not inherently bad, but is that where we should put resources and labor?

Vs

We Should we be using them to but not in a capitalist way. We should use them keep detailed maintenance logs and make sure access use is equitable at the local tool library.

Vs

Do they give us an opportunity for surveillance that we should simply not even have?

Clothes Dryers, for one thing. I remember a while back I was looking into ways to reduce my electric bill/footprint and I learned the hard way that the HOA where I used to live bans you from using a clothesline to dry your shit.

It’s all about asking the question “is this technological solution actually an improvement, and is that improvement worth all of the costs associated with getting it?” Under capitalism the drive is to sell as many devices as possible with no regard to the downstream costs of adding them. It’s easy to see where that drive clearly goes too far as it often does with terrible kickstarters for $500 DRM-protected juicing machines, but it would be worthwhile for society to apply that lens of analysis to every technological solution that we’ve come to take for granted.