Punk rose to prominence, in part, because of their acceptance of technology. They used technology that was once the expensive and in the domain of conservative corporations that was turned into accessible and cheap ways to disseminate ideas.
Xerox machines were prominently used to create flyers for shows and distribute zines. Cassette tapes were copied and passed around to anyone who wanted one. VHS was used to record shows and distribute other media. Lowered cost for TV transmission meant not only punk was a topic that could be seen on TV but that local access shows could be used to disseminate media further.
"Punk" is tied to the aesthetics of brightly colored hair, Mohawks, patches on jackets, jack boots etc. which coerces anyone who makes claims of being punk in the modern era into a anachronistic pastiche of what punk was in the late 1970s or early 1980s, with washed out "xerox effect" flyers or physical zines. Aesthetics aside, punk was primarily about a DIY ethos of using whatever tools were available to create art, discuss politics or create a scene.
The modern day equivalent exists, we just don't call it "punk" because it doesn't have the aesthetics attached. You want to know what modern day punk-rock looks like? It's not emulating some juvenile interpretation of Meditations, it's standing up Mastodon social networks, using Nostr, advocating for the freedom of Julian Assange, creating custom AI models that diagnose breast cancer, pushing libre/free/open source, creating art installations with custom electronics, and on and on.
There's one aspect of punk, not the whole aspect but one splinter faction, that was defeatist and pretty much dead on arrival. I only skimmed the article but that's the vein of punk rock the article seems to be channeling. Any movement that positions itself as a rejection of culture is doomed to fail, either because it fizzles out or because it becomes incorporated. The measure shouldn't be how contrary a movement is, it should be how it's trying to shape culture for the better.