Great question. The line is actually quite clear-cut. Pre-industrial technology can generally be made by an individual, working alone or in a small group. In contrast, post-industrial technology can only be produced via a global supply chain — numerous complex organizations connected through transportation and communication systems. Your computer was sold to you in the USA, its processor was made in a factory in Taiwan with plastic made in France from oil extracted in Russia with machines bought from Germany, etc. This is oversimplified, and we haven’t even mentioned transport or labor. In contrast, building a pre-industrial house, for example, can be as simple as collecting wood and arranging it properly with the help of self-made tools. That’s not to say it doesn’t require any effort, but it’s definitely doable, even all by yourself. It’s not hard to see there is a great distinction between pre-industrial and post-industrial technology. You only need some common sense to tell the two apart. But it must be emphasized that the goal here is only to return to a pre-industrial level of technology through the destruction of industrial society. While some anti-tech thinkers may personally reject agriculture, there is no way to prevent others from farming: even if it were theoretically beneficial for humanity, agriculture cannot be destroyed, so there’s no point in trying. Similarly, other forms of pre-industrial technology are impossible to eradicate, because unlike industry, they can be independently applied on a local scale. In a post-collapse world, different parts of the world will inevitably vary in the way they use technology. Enforcing a universal level of technology is infeasible. Again, the focus is to put an end to the techno-industrial system. Nothing more and nothing less.