Some rigour is expected when discussing history. This article does not apply this rigour to recent events in its introduction to what we are supposed to believe

Some rigour is expected when discussing history. This article does not apply this rigour to recent events in its introduction to what we are supposed to believe the Luddites were protesting against. In the introduction we have it implied that 'Modern Luddites' invent malware to 'disrupt the technologies that trouble them' with the nuclear power plant in Iran being cited as an example. Wasn't Stuxnet one of the NSA's Tailored Access Operations (TAO)? Are the NSA considered 'Modern Luddites', up there with the Unabomber? Furthermore, students of history know of the Magna Carta and the right to a fair trial. So then we have 'the cave-dwelling terrorist sometimes derided as Osama bin Luddite'. It may not be fashionable to dare to say it but the idea that this cave-dwelling 'Luddite' was the one that 'hijacked aviation technology to bring down skyscrapers' has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Asserting this to be the case to then write some drivel about the original Luddites is extremely lazy for a historian. It might be okay for journalists and politicians to do this however less controversial examples could have been found to introduce this story. Incidentally the Unabomber did get a fair trial with the FBI doing their job properly. This was in the days before the 'post truth' world we live in now where something repeated often enough becomes truthy enough to be passed off as fact in lazy articles.