Neil Postman is usually credited (if that's the right word) with being a foremost technological determinist. I tend to think that at least part of his determinist stance stemmed from his desire to warn us of the dangers of being overly enthusiastic toward new technologies, but that may be an attempt on my part to brush his determinism at least a bit under the rug. In Chapter 1 of Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology Postman examines Thamus's opposition to writing in Plato's Phaedrus:

Thamus simply takes for granted—and therefore does not feel it necessary to say— that writing is not a neutral technology whose good or harm depends on the uses made of it. He knows that the uses made of any technology are largely determined by the structure of the technology itself—that is, that its functions follow from its form. This is why Thamus is concerned not with what people will write; he is concerned that people will write. It is absurd to imagine Thamus advising, in the manner of today’s standard-brand Technophiles, that, if only writing would be used for the production of certain kinds of texts and not others (let us say, for dramatic literature but not for history or philosophy), its disruptions could be minimized. He would regard such counsel as extreme naiveté. He would allow, I imagine, that a technology may be barred entry to a culture. But we may learn from Thamus the following: once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do. Our task is to understand what that design is—that is to say, when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open.