You're entirely wrong. The fact that governance has become distributed out to economic networks makes guerrilla war more effective, not less. Read Assange's state and terrorist conspiracies and John Robb's Brave New War for extensive breakdowns of this concept, but hierarchical networks (i.e., centrally controlled networks) have many more choke points and weak links than can be effectively defended. Modern infrastructure is more distributed, not less, and local areas are less locally resilient.
Clearly 23 men in a yacht could not have toppled the American government of the 50's, but Islamists (and hopefully others, it would be a shame if only the Islamists figured out how to fight modern war) are essentially doing the same thing now by attacking American networks. You can fight guerrilla war against corporations in the same way -- this is what MEND is doing against Shell.
>There's no easy answer but I think It could even be argued that guerrilla warfare has gotten worse because with modern technology people can be given more luxury while still keeping them under rule. The PC and electronic media are such examples. PC games and netflix, chans and hobbyist forums etc. People can do a lot while behaving well, even in less well off countries.
For one, this seems a non-sequitur, what does PC gaming have to do with the effectiveness of guerrilla war? It has also become far easier to equip and outfit small groups of warfighters with sufficient firepower to do serious ($MM worth of damage for dollars of spend).
For another, this belies a very serious misunderstanding of "less well off countries." The next billion internet users go up to a year without connecting their smartphones to wifi. Suggesting that "chans" (who have maybe 1% of Facebook's userbase) move the needle at all belies a pretty lopsided understanding of modernity.