I still don't consider myself a luddite after reading this. It's thought provoking but neo-luddism has stronger ties to the anti-science movement than the autho

I still don't consider myself a luddite after reading this. It's thought provoking but neo-luddism has stronger ties to the anti-science movement than the author probably wishes. From my understanding, neo-luddism doesn't separate the technology from who's using it. Social media has created a kind of communication that was once thought science fiction, I can have a meaningful conversation with a few hundred people reading my message without ever learning who I am. That kind of tool for communication is naturally exploited by big companies but at the same time you see things like addiction recovery forums that overall are a positive good for society. The creation and iteration of these tools move too fast for society/government to meaningfully have had a discussion about it. The author seems to be implying that a luddite today looks closer to the kind of people that join anonymous and are against mega-corporations. I think that's no longer related to technology. That's a view of requiring stronger government oversight of how tech oligopolies operate, but the reality is that it's not just tech companies that use these tools to paint a narrative. The only way to fight that kind of control is to understand the technology yourself. I support the message but I don't believe it's a discussion about technology and so I don't consider myself a luddite or neo-luddite. The wikipedia article about neo-luddism also paints a pretty different picture of what it is compared to what the author writes. However it seems that there isn't a strong message of what neo-luddism is yet in general and is still being developed as a philosophy.