My point was some technologies are made in such a way that they can only be immoral, or was made in a way where the only use from said technology is to do as much damage as possible. I am not sure we are on the same page.

Maybe in 1000 years we will find a use for all the land mines that are in the ground after wars. Its not the mines themselves that are immoral, its the people that lay the mines that are evil. We should leave the mines because they might serve a valueable purpose later and suddenly start saving lives. Despite the fact that mines are known as the most destructive vindictive thing you can do to acivilian population. They are only made to harm people, and often innocent people generations later long detatched from the original conflict.

If there was a machine that launched baby corpses at our targets, and required the blood of virgins to run and was only used to psychologically traumatize anyone who seen it, would my point be more clear? I could argue that sure maybe the machine isn't technically immoral if you don't run it. But we all know why the machine was made for, and I don't see any reason to try to make a distinction between who is immoral when it seems pretty straight forward.

Sorry I'm one of those insufferable well aclhuuually guys we are kind of on the same page and arguing over words and how to use them when I can barely spell.

Who developed it: no, probably not that much. Who is selling it/pushing it, absolutely. And users also inherently interact with those social and political structures, e.g. through working within a capitalist organisation (as most of us do), and influencing it's evolution (as most of us do, though often unintentionally)