I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that that wrong is no excuse for the other wrong.

There are infinite ways to attack any problem, and it's not a requirement but a choice to persue only certain ideas vs others.

For instance, these approaches are based on removing agency from all users for the supposed goal of dealing with the bad users.

But there is no law of physics that says that is the only way to do that.

You could go the opposite direction and empower all users to deal with bad actors themselves just like in real life where anbasshole simply gets avoided or punched in the nose, which works by the simple math that the bad actors are outnumbered by everyone else. They still always exist but they are relegated to operating in the corners and shadows.

But their low level presence is a fact of life no matter what. Oppressive regimes don't get rid of them either. The sales pitch is we'll protect you but in fact they don't any better than you could have yoirself.

A company that has an easier option and has no other value meter than money divorced from any consideration of how it is attained, simply has no incentive to bother doing anything but the easiest thing. That's the only reason they want the keys to your house, because you stupidly give them, not because they need them or have the tiniest right to demand them to protect their entertainment business.

We have a working solution that some games still use, dedicated servers with admins that can investigate and ban people themselves. Has its own suite of problems but it works well against cheaters.

But skill based matchmaking type games where you're matched with random people is fundamentally incompatible with this model, that is why the person you responded to you said that you're suggesting that these games should cease to exist.