I never said there was a single entitiy in charge, nor that it was impossible to host politically damaging or ifringing content. I only said that you need permission from several parties. Both wikileaks and thepiratebay have obtained permission (or at a minimum did not attract ire) from all of the parties I listed. If they did not, then they would not be accessible.

Do you think either site managed to purchase and control a domain name without the approval of a domain registrar?

Do you think either site is accessible without the approval of the ISP providing a connection to their server?

Etc. down the list I provided.

If your point is that one human can't admin an entire internet then sure you are technically correct (best type). But that isn't a useful point - the web is still highly decentralised even though it takes more than one person to run it.

Both those domains at various times have had disagreements with their registrars, with their ISPs and with bodies on the internet more powerful than that. Hasn't made any difference to whether I can connect to them or not, because there are always alternative paths and vendors. Which is more or less what it means to be decentralised. In practice, being able to replace any party and keep on going is the capability that matters.

My point, as stated originally, is that "web3" and all the hype around it in its current form will require less (practically none) permission for users to interact with it than the existing web paradigm we are familiar with.