Honestly, I'm not sure if these criticisms toward LN centralization are entirely true because they forget that even today, with Big Tech's natural monopolies and states leveraging these advantages to censor, you can still find everything on the internet because some people value their freedom more than a perfect user experience. And then they use VPNs, Tor, and more. If there is a market for information to flow freely across the web, you can be sure that there will be an immensely larger market for money circulating freely across the web, creating huge incentives for unregulated LSPs to pop up.

I'm trying the Electrum LN wallet right now, one among many to come, and it works really decently. You can already choose between some LSPs for Trampoline routing. Once blinded paths are implemented to gain more privacy with these LSPs, you can imagine some functionalities implemented in wallets like Electrum to open a batch of channels (in one single transaction to save fees a bit) with some popular Trampoline routing nodes. If one attempts to censor your transaction, you could use splicing to easily move your funds to another channel.

What's certain, on the other hand, is that we'll see a fork between regulated and unregulated networks, and the doors between the two will be hard to cross. Only criminals involved in money laundering operations will manage to get their "dirty" satoshis circulating on the regulated network of these areas

So in the end, if LN succeeds, it will undoubtedly be heavily regulated, but money will continue to flow at the speed of light between freedom seekers, from heavily regulated jurisdictions to less heavily regulated jurisdictions, without the possibility of seizure, capital control, or theft by inflating the money supply. It's more a split of networks problem, than a centralization problem when it comes to open protocols IMO