Chandler (2002) said that the term "deterministic" had a negative connotation among social scientists. He said that forms of determinism, especially technological determinism, are being increasingly scrutinized by scholars. I think it's very easy to see why someone would be skeptical about deterministic theories, such as technological determinism. Determinism appears to oversimplify something very complex, it "seeks to explain social and historical phenomena in terms of ONE principal or determining factor"(as Chandler puts it). To put it bluntly, technological determinism proposes that technology is THE main factor in shaping society.
Chandler obviously does not dismiss the fact that technology is a factor, even an important factor, in shaping society. However, there are other important factors involved. Additionally, he makes a very interesting point, when he states that it's "difficult to isolate causes and effects". It's also quite hard to "even distinguish causes from effects."
He also quotes Leslie White as saying that "the technological factor...determines the form of social systems". Then, "technology and society together determine the content and orientation of philosophy." I can't help but speculate that technological determinism has it backward; in other words, the causes and effects have been switched around.
I always thought that philosophy/ideology shapes society. Then, the ideological-shaped society determines the kind of technology it will end up producing. Of course, once the technology is introduced to society, it may end up going back and re-shape society and it's philosophy.
You make a good point that the "deterministic" perspective perhaps simplifies our views of technology. I agree that is the case.