This has nothing to do with centralization
If we accept this point, we could then just as easily claim that Bitcoin itself is "somewhat centralized" because governments can shut down a Bitcoin node or a mining farm. The whole point of decentralization revolves around resistance to such actions, i.e. shutting down one site or node doesn't shut down the whole system. Apart from that, it is pointless to replicate a site (or whole Internet) over blockchain (somehow else) since if the resource gets closed or access to it is blocked, its copy could be launched elsewhere in less than no time
Yes, but that is not what I meant. I know that governments could shut down nodes, even those of Bitcoin which are vulnerable. But still, even if they manage to shut down several nodes, there will always be other nodes residing on several countries which make it difficult to take down the whole network.
The point that I'm bringing here is redundancy where content remains distributed across a network of computers, and will remain in there forever if there is a single node on the network. But again, I know that it may not be the most viable solution nowadays, making it possible at some point in the future
What is the purpose of replicating what is mostly garbage?
The transactions written on the blockchain are as worth as Bitcoin itself since they define the end state of each wallet (i.e. how many coins it contains). So, unless we talk about spammy 1 satoshi transactions (but even these do matter after all, provided they get confirmed), any transaction is an integral part of what makes up Bitcoin. This is not the case with sites existing in Internet. In fact, without some of them Internet would likely be even better than it is today, so I don't see any sense in such blind replication. It will be just a terrible waste of resources