You say that the advent of the internet allows for the decentralization of information and thereby prevents a totalitarian state. I disagree, for the censorship of information does not require total control and the accessibility of that information will always be competing against the entertainment side for peoples attention.

I think that Huxley keyed into a very prevalent idea, not that information would be suppressed but instead ignored in favor of media designed to trigger a dopamine response. Web design, advertisement, social media, consumption media, etc is all designed to maximize the pleasure centers of our brains to trigger habitual usage. This is contrasted by the drudgingly painful experience of researching a topic. A deep seeded feeling partially brought about through compulsory government schooling. For the majority of people who seem to be content with immediate satisfaction, the choice of the former over the latter is a completely reasonable one. Taken with the rise of "entertainment news" its easily more preferable to consume and feel good in the moment without considering the possibility of falsehood. Furthermore, there is a massive learning curve involved with decentralized and secure communication. Even if one saw the utility of Tor or uncensorable media like steemit, there is a barrier to entry involved to learn a side of the internet that is unnatural to the outsider. These things are serious advantages that an entity bent on controlling information has on its side. The mere existence of the internet does not make a level playing field.

As long as the mass majority of people remain content with constant consumption media Huxley's foreboding predictions may yet come true. We have collected a wealth of human knowledge and laid it at the fingertips of modern society, and yet... most would rather watch the latest LETS PLAY video.