"Natural selection" is a somewhat misleading term. Evolution does not need "natural" selection to occur; it only needs selection. Even the term "selection" is a bit misleading because it's often thought of as referring to the death of individuals or, somewhat more accurately, as reduced likelihood of producing offspring, due to lower fitness.
In fact, any process that gives individuals with particular genetically determined features - a reproductive advantage in a given ecological niche will drive evolution among the sub-population within that niche.
Addressing your question more directly: Suppose technology leads to people whose keyboarding talents are high having more children. If so, it will tend to drive evolution among the sub-population having access to keyboards toward genotypes having higher keyboarding talents. But if having keyboarding talents results in those individuals having less likelihood of producing children, evolution in that sub-population will be driven in the opposite direction.
IF it could be said that technology in general decouples human reproduction from "natural" influences like disease, resource availability, climate, etc., it could then be said that evolution will be less driven by those influences and more driven by, e.g., the cultural tendencies of particular sub-populations to produce more children. But that would be a gross over-simplification.
It is almost certain that changes in technology have had significant influence on human evolution. Agriculture, clothing, tool use, etc., have all had long-term consequences in human evolution.
Human culture is very complex, and separating out all the effects of technology on differential reproduction rates among sub-populations would be extremely difficult; but it's almost certain that there are such effects.