The main counter-arguments against the "Technosocialism" by B. King and R. Patty can be reduced to three positions. Firstly, the most advanced technologies so far cannot not only provide a high standard of living for entire mankind, but even in the countries of the "golden billion" there will not be enough funds to introduce a basic unconditional income. Second, the potential to ensure prosperity for all will not translate into reality if existing institutions in society block the redistribution of wealth and life opportunities from the elite to the poor. Most importantly, thirdly, ensuring the satisfaction of human needs without participation in joint work is simply dangerous, since it is fraught with degradation of the individual and society. The model of "technosocialism" is therefore not only impossible at the present stage of development, but also dangerous if it were possible. The concept of "technosocialism" turns out to be a combination of a semi-fantastic utopia and dystopia, reflecting the contradictions of the Western technocrats' public consciousness, who are passionate about the introduction of digital technologies into business, but see its ambiguity. This concept with all its shortcomings and advantages fully fits the “bourgeois socialism” described in the “Manifesto” by K. Marx and F. Engels. The most important positive role that Technosocialism can play is the role of a challenge to professional social scientists who are close to the socialist idea.