The way the article cites "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" is slightly off base. The essay argues that lack of structure is not an effective way to dismantle hierarchies, because it merely masks them instead of dismantling them. It does not go as far to claim that hierarchies and power structures are inevitable (although many people citing it claim that it's making this argument).
Although I guess you could argue that the text itself is less important than the impression it made on people who read it...
The Tyranny of Structurelessness literally says power structures are inevitable and when a group has no explicit structure an elite will form from either a pre-existing network or an informal network of those who are good at networking and match whatever qualities the larger group deems as "good".
So quoting that seemed to be about making the point that in the absence of formal, structured regulation decided through a well-defined process what happen is that you get elite insiders exerting control for their own reasons which may or may not benefit the general group, and without any oversight at all.
Both articles were in favour of formal structures with accountability and open processes that allow for changes when required, and against unstructured groups that invariably wind up controlled by unelected elites.
Although I guess you could argue that the text itself is less important than the impression it made on people who read it...