I'm not claiming conspiracy. Or are you just reacting to my mention of Alex Jones (who I do not support by the way) which I was simply using as a recent and well known example of censorship which in itself might very well be a conspiracy, but that's irrelevant to this conversation.
There's a big difference between decentralized and distributed. Decentralized meaning there is no central authority or control, and distributed meaning the data itself is not centralized however control over it still is. You cannot truly decentralize while retaining control to censor without the consent of the majority. So the real question is how to distribute the data in a way that takes advantage of some aspects of decentralization while retaining the control to censor, because let's face it... even though many of us are willing to accept the consequences of decentralization in the interest of freedom, the vast majority are not.
I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like your focusing mainly on the benefits of decentralization from a technical standpoint and what that means for computing and I completely agree with that viewpoint. On the other hand, most people outside of the tech world associate "decentralization" solely with eliminating central authority which, aside from greed, is the driving force behind decentralized currencies in the first place.
What I mean by saying people are not ready for the consequences of true decentralization is that people have to be tolerant of material they don't like or agree with since the very nature of decentralization means giving up the ability to censor all the ugliness that comes with it. Until people wake up and accept the personal responsibility that's required for our freedom we will never have true decentralization (or freedom for that matter). People not wanting that responsibility is what got us into the mess were in in the first place.