More often than not, I think appropriateness applies not to technologies, but implementations. I personally favor the most democratic implementations. By this, I don't necessarily mean democratic as in "majority rule", rather democratic as in "organized from the bottom up".
Take the most elementary components of a system and ask this simple and stupid question: "cui bono"? In this context, I'm not asking who benefits from the system as a whole (although that's certainly an important question), rather who benefits from this tiny subsystem? The ideal answer, in my view, is "anyone who is interested". When it comes to information technologies, this boils down to news you can use, no more and no less.
My own biased opinion is that appropriate technology at its best is "apropriate" technology. Please don't confuse this with "appropriated" (stolen) technology. I respect the Rule of Law enough to put it on a higher pedestal than my own opinions, and don't have any immediate plans to change that. But I respect myself enough too much to believe that only the undeserving ever find themselves on the outside looking in on the spectacle of economic production. For this reason, I envision a future full of not only inclusive technologies, but inclusive incubators of technologies.
The challenge as I see it is to create research organizations that publish everything they know, teach anyone who wants to know, and are open to active participation by all on a noncompetitive basis. The obstacles are few, but noteworthy. Specifically: reality.