These stories bug the crap out of me, but, I think, for a different reason. See, I know that the author of any given story (in any genre) is going to have opinions about things, and that those opinions are going to differ from mine sometimes. That's not an issue. What /is/ an issue is when the opinion is about a matter of fact, and the "fact" is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

So the story you're talking about has a giant logical problem in it: that the technology, in the context mentioned, could not possibly produce the negative effect that it does in the story. As the story starts heading down that path, my brain starts rebelling: no, it says, this is stupid. This is not even a reasonable guess about how things would work. But if I continue reading (which I almost always do), the plotline slowly drags through the inevitable consequences of something that wouldn't ever happen, and the whole exercise seems ludicrous and vile. It's because the author has an end in mind, and is /forcing/ the events of the story to that end rather than subtly guiding you to that end; it's a magic trick where the magician has accidentally shown you the hidden pocket in his coat ahead of time, but stumbles through the rest of the act anyway even though you know damn well where the doves are coming from.

Come to think of it, this is the same problem I have with reading Ayn Rand.