I think the point is that it would be a fairly logical to conclude that if he "doesn't believe in email", he's going to have a very hard time understanding the implications of net neutrality, IP rights, and more.

When cs giants like Donald Knuth also "don't believe in email" I find this line of reasoning specious.

His position (which is explained on his webpage: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html) is a little more nuanced. Relevant section:

> Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration.

I think he would agree that a President's role is to be 'on top of things'.

I think it would be reasonable to conclude that "don't believe in email because I can't be bothered to do computer stuff" is different from "don't believe in email because I understand all relevant technology from top to bottom and have made an informed choice."

It's not clear that Knuth would be a particularly knowledgeable leader on these issues either, whatever his other strengths.

That's a fair argument. However, the reason behind Knuth's conclusions are inevitably different than Trump's. So, I think it shouldn't be compared.

This doesn't seem remotely true, if you compare the regulations tech has been subject to with those applied to other industries (or tech in Europe).

Can you give some examples of anti-tech activities you are referring to, in case I am missing something?