Would the Luddites have been a useful source to understand how the machines of the time actually worked? Should I expect my local Green party representative to explain nuclear fission coherently? Is Ed Zitron the guy to explain how to implement and train a neural network?
Critique of things is irrelevant to understanding how they work.
But they were crushed and defeated, and their name became a shorthand ad hominem to disregard arguments that make one side of the debate uncomfortable.
Because understanding how things work is not the same thing as understanding who it works for and why.
This logically belongs on a discussion of how the thing works, and not on a critique of the consequences of it working.