I'm a little confused by this sentiment. The internet is a distributed system that, over time, became centralized into fewer and fewer hands. The internet wouldn't really function any different on a mesh network, except the nodes are much more distributed. In other words, they are both largely the same.
You might ask, how was this problem solved for the normal internet?
The answer is: It was *not* fixed, we just centralized the problem into fewer and fewer hands. Then that created a new problem centralized internet being easily monitored, controlled, censored, etc.
No one needs to explain how to deal with bad actors with a mesh net because there is no basis of comparison for an internet where that problem was ever solved to begin with. The problem they are trying to solve is centralization. If you argue that the biggest risk to the internet is the central controllers _being_ the bad actors, then it's a win. If you argue that there are other bad actors and having a mesh net won't eliminate them, then you just have a really convenient excuse to do nothing while the same bad actors frolic through-out the existing internet fairly unimpeded anyway.
You might ask, how was this problem solved for the normal internet?
The answer is: It was *not* fixed, we just centralized the problem into fewer and fewer hands. Then that created a new problem centralized internet being easily monitored, controlled, censored, etc.
No one needs to explain how to deal with bad actors with a mesh net because there is no basis of comparison for an internet where that problem was ever solved to begin with. The problem they are trying to solve is centralization. If you argue that the biggest risk to the internet is the central controllers _being_ the bad actors, then it's a win. If you argue that there are other bad actors and having a mesh net won't eliminate them, then you just have a really convenient excuse to do nothing while the same bad actors frolic through-out the existing internet fairly unimpeded anyway.