Does the IPFS community have a plan for bad PR?

Essentially my concern is that some publicized high profile incident involving IPFS (or p2p in general) could be used by the incumbents (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc) to demonize and suppress p2p technology.

A similar thing happened with GMO crops in Europe. Basically the story goes like this: GMO crops arrive in Europe. Shortly thereafter Mad Cow Disease breaks out from contaminated meat (had nothing to do with GMO crops). Ill-informed people conflate the two and think GMO crops are dangerous. Incumbents whose business models would be threatened by GMO crops (producers of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc) latch onto the fear and, with help from the media and activists, spread the fear and pressure governments into banning GMO crops. The result is a useful technology which is better for the environment and people’s wallets gets suppressed by powerful incumbents.

The above information is simply there to illustrate what can happen and is not arguing for or against GMO crops.

So how might p2p tech be demonized or suppressed? How about a high profile case of child porn? Or better yet somebody buying a gun off of OpenBazaar and using it for a school shooting?

It would go like this: School shooting happens at (name your school). An investigation reveals the shooter bought the gun from OpenBazaar. Facebook, Google, and Amazon latch on to this and use this to spread fear of p2p tech. As a result governments ban tech companies from using p2p networks such as IPFS.

So my question is does the IPFS community have any recourse if something like this happens?

I guess pointing at all the legit use cases already there. Just like BitTorrent, Bitcoin or Tor did. Or before them: the Internet.
There is already the Storm malware leveraging libp2p. But there are also a lot of good use cases already in production.