In the US we have no right to a jury "of our peers" as we generally think of it.
It's one of those things that people think is in the Constitution but in reality is not.
We have the right to a jury trial. The jury has to be impartial.. It has to be in the state that the crime was committed. And that's it.
The only way we get a jury "of our peers" is if you consider that the American ideal says that we are all peers, regardless of gender, race, religion, education, experience, etc.
In the case of this specific trial, given that detailed knowledge of the Internet is rare, I imagine that the attorneys involved were asking questions designed to find out if any potential jurors had a deep understanding of these things, and while I'm not sure which side would be doing it, but one side or the other would decide that deep knowledge of these things was bad for their case, and since such people are rare, they'd use their peremptory challenge to keep such people off the jury.
Without this system, you might have a person or two on the jury who understands such things pretty well. But with the system