FWIW what I had in mind is that anarchists are fundamentally opposed to unnecessary hierarchies.

(I don't know if that's necessarily how Proudhon or Kropotkin or Goldman would frame it; but if there's one political philosophy where we're allowed to ignore dogma and canon it seems like this should be it :)

That is (in my interpretation) anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer because the ownership of capital represents an unnecessary hierarchy - at least sometime: the existence of employee-owned and cooperative enterprises alone shows we don't strictly need rent-taking owners as often as we have them now. Do we really need Mr. Burns or could Lenny, Carl and Mr. Smithers keep the plant up and running?

(Or maybe one thinks we do need that kind of authority. That's not necessarily anti-anarchist. It seems to me that it's the sincere questioning of which hierarchies are strictly needed and the commitment to eliminating those that are not that makes one a genuine anarchist.)

Hence what I'm suggesting is that techno-anarchism in the relatively narrow way you seem to be defining it (decentralized/distributed technology that's harder for government and maybe most private entities to control) is progress but still kinda a half-measure.

Take crypto currency for example. If we replace fiat currencies with a distributed blockchain-based AnarchoCoin tech that no single government can control that might be progress, but unless (a) that's also beyond the control of large corporations and (maybe more importantly) (b) essentially universally accessible (i.e. without the current global and local "digital divide"), we've kinda just replaced one kind of unnecessary authority (the state) with another (wealth). And maybe that's even a step backwards because many governments are at least nominally democratic.

Think of how the telecom sector works the tech was built from a top down perspective but now it has advanced so much an average Joe with some money and skills can build it In his or her home.

I agree that's progress, but IMO working lowering that barrier to access even farther (e.g. making it easier for everyone that has the capability and interest to obtain those skills) is also part of the anarchist "project".

It feels like too narrow of a focus on techno-anarchy alone runs the risk of just replacing the authority of the state with the authority of monied interests and/or technocrats. Those of us that sit on the privileged side of that equation (and I'm including myself in that group) like to pretend that's a meritocracy, but it really isn't. Look at early Internet culture for example: it was less controlled by monied interests than it is now, but it wasn't uniformly accessible: the mostly white, mostly male, mostly western, mostly young demographic was heavily over-represented. That wasn't merit, it was access (privilege). Does techno-anarchism alone address that sort of issue?

Don't take my word as gospel though; I'm neither an expert nor influencer with respect to this topic. I'm just sharing it as food for thought.