The claim that technologies drive social change is usually attacked in a form nobody holds. Serious versions do not assert that an artefact determines an outcome irrespective of context; they assert that some technologies make certain arrangements much cheaper than others, and that over time the cheaper arrangement tends to prevail even where nobody chose it. This is weaker than determinism and considerably stronger than the constructivist position that treats technologies as infinitely interpretable. The printing press did not cause the Reformation, and it did make a particular kind of religious dispute affordable in a way it had not been. Framing the debate as determinism against social construction has kept both sides from the more interesting question of how much room a given technology leaves, which varies enormously and is answerable case by case.