the OP's example seems pretty typical to me. There is a corporatist zeal for control behind the most heavily flogged 'high tech' today. They only require a certain amount of marketing gleam and confident swagger to be accepted by an establishment that is still self-conscious about appearing technologically inept.
As long as individuals are not being harmed, I think such behavior is reasonably classified as Luddite.
I think such opinions are emblematic of the libertarian mindset discussed in the OP: Brandishing "buggy whip" and "Luddite" as if they automatically settle any disagreement over the tech sector's involvement in empowering police states, vulture capitalists and other perfumed miscreants.
And using government involvement as the excuse for an undesirable outcome is classic. If it is the "people" who are being empowered, then is it a case where we were empowered but not quite enough?
Most of what is deemed "high tech" by the for-profit press is conceived explicitly to serve the interests of capitalists, to increase their value at the expense of others. For that reason, they tend to turn their backs on technologies that don't assume increased monetization of society, that don't favor expanding the advantage of the powerful over the vulnerable, that don't increase the disparity of wealth between classes.
IOW, we are a looooong way away from the entrepreneurship of the 1970s, the advent of the personal computer and the first big push into renewable energy. Today, the former is being turned into a bastion of corporate centralization and control, and the latter is still not what most investors would get involved with because they are attuned to wealth and power in their concentrated forms (which is even more remarkable given that much of the technology is already sufficiently developed) -- or am I mistaken?!
Yes!! I see it now!! We gotta wait for Mr. Fusion to be invented in some hallowed hall of commerce... I was so wrong to be fixated on renewables-cum-buggywhips!
I am being dismissive since that is all the OP and its citation merit.
Then you have only shown that it is your POV that lacks relevant material. You seem to be trying to prove the OPs point, if anything.
= new reply since forum marked as read