It depends on what you mean by "freedom". Some people see that as "freedom to do whatever I want", "freedom to be myself","freedom from coercion", "freedom from restriction", all of which take us different places. I don't see much value in the term anymore because it can mean everything from the "freedom" to treat people like property to the "freedom" of not being treated like property, the same way that "equality" can mean everything from "no one has any power everyone else doesn't also have" to "everyone must conform to the same pattern and deviants must be assimilated or destroyed".
My desire for anarchy involves a desire for collaborative self-determination, for diversity without hierarchy, for removing obstacles that solidify abusive behavior. As much as I love mutual aid and autonomy, mine is not just a fondness for some form of "liberty" and "community" but also a hatred for hierarchical power (coercion, domination, exploitation) and alienation. So to a certain extent I do agree, it's probably just an argument of semantics and clarification.
It's easier to merely imagine one's own isolated lifestyle of "freedom", but more difficult to imagine it in a world without statism, nationalism, capitalism, clerical & punitive religion, racism, sexism, ageism, the society of the spectacle, prescriptive gender and sexual orientation, ideological rigidity, and objective morality*. To me that is the relevance of anarchism as social theory: we do not merely consider ourselves and perhaps abstract categories but instead have specific analysis which can inform logistics on a social scale. Merely seeking "freedom" does not necessarily properly inform solidarity; the analyses of oppression must be there.
Bakunin wrote that, "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and Socialism without Freedom is slavery and brutality." He believed that the freedom of each requires the freedom of all, and so all must have access to what they need, either through sharing or personal provision, and no one ought to use property against others to create hierarchies and exploitation through profit, interest, rent, and wage slavery. His vision of an entirely anti-statist socialism contrasts with that which most people imagine now, if you're new to this thinking. You could replace "Socialism" with "egalitarianism" or "equality" or something else depending on definitions; it basically comes down to: an owning class and and a laboring class cannot coexist with freedom for each, it is merely freedom for some to exploit others.
*As a green anarchist I add: humanism, scientism, notions of unilinear time and historical progress, the hegemony of symbolic culture (language, writing, time, math, art, ritual) over sensual experience, permanent settlement, labor specialization, mass society of strangers, domestication, urbanization, colonialism, industrialization, technophilia, scientism, drawdown, and overshoot.
