A smart person (Bucky Fuller) explained it this way:

Through history, each iteration of technology changed human society. Even if governments in different nations changed, the technology of the nations remained largely unchanged. IOW, the government in what was once Persia changed in the 1970s from a monarchy and became a theofascist oligarchy renamed Iran. Despite this, the technology used by people in that nation remained largely the same before and after their revolution. 

the first machines amplified the physical body - the muscles - the ability to do work. Weapons, farming tools, construction tools, pulleys, wheels increased a human being's arms, legs, hands, feet. 

Then in the 20th century, electronics amplified the human senses - ears, eyes, touch, smell, sensation were all extended by use of electronic devices. 

The invention of semi-conductors/digital computers/thinking machines (software-based) amplified the abilities of the human mind.  

Technology merely amplifies potentials. So, computers/thinking machines don't automatically make Humanity better except where they amplify the healthy mind. 

The up-side of computers/thinking machines is that they increase the power of the human mind to do good. Unfortunately, the down-side is, as with all other technological achievements, computers also amplify the bad in the human mind - enhancing what is sick, distracting, dysfunctional and destructive. 

The same tech that allows groups of people to swiftly mobilize defense, also can mobilize mobs of thieves, rioters and terrorists. 

Fuller goes into how this process functions in more detail in a book "Critical Path". One part of the book lists all of Humanity's greatest technological developments starting in the ancient past and discusses how they changed society both for the better and worse.*

* The only part of that book which was incorrect was the part where he discusses AGW (anthropogenic global warming) as related to carbon emissions. He was fooled by a large movement of the time into believing things that have since been refuted by genuine science. There is a lot of scientific evidence about man-caused global warming, but virtually all of the strongest evidence is that it is not in fact an accurate conjecture, but rather a convenient fiction that has caught on politically. Ignore that part of the book and it is gold.