Similar with the Holonet and players assuming it works like the Internet. The Internet was designed to be a robust network in the event of infrastructure collapse and to make sure everyone could talk to everyone else. The Holonet was designed as a top-down communications system by a Fascist state that does not anticipate any devastating attacks by enemies of equal power. Why should it be designed the same?
The Holonet was around before the Empire, you know this from TCW. Who knows how it was designed? The Internet structure is really the only logical one if you want reliability, which is just as important in a fascist state as a democratic one...possibly more so. And it's not like fascist states can't control the internet: if you were in China, and they had a Death Star, you probably wouldn't try to send such monumentally important information by email either...fascist states can control their local Internet quite well.
The Holonet may have been around before the Empire but they've had a couple of decades to do things there way and I imagine things were getting pretty totalitarian during the war years, too. Questions like "who knows how it was designed" are meaningless in a fictional setting where there is little evidence either way. What I was putting forward was a view on it that is consistent with the setting, works logically from it being a backbone technology of a fascist state and I disagree about reliability being dependent on our existing Internet design. Resilience would be a better word for what our current Internet design offers. I do agree that our current Internet design is slightly better from fundamental principles in terms of resilience and potentially slightly better in terms of reliability. But I do not assume that these are the key criteria for an Imperial communications network. I would posit that security and control are more important. Modern real-world armies could have better and more reliable communications if they just used powerful and unencrypted communications. But they don't.
And I definitely disagree with you about being able to control the Internet. Your China example more proves the opposite of what you say since it is riddled with holes and darknets and obfuscated unapproved activity. All aided and abetted by a networking approach designed to make it easy to set up decentralized communications. A system designed with security and control in mind would be MUCH harder to subvert.
In any case, part of the reason I assume it's the same structurally as what we have is because then I don't have to waste time in game trying to explain to my non-StarWars-fan players why they can't do something. It's partly selfish
but I don't think it violates any of what we see in the media.
I find the opposite problem more commonly rearing its head (and being more problematic to deal with) - i.e. players assuming or arguing they can do stuff because they see SW technology as being like the real world. My very first session someone playing a technician said: "I contact the spaceport computer systems and spoof a message to the bounty hunter to tell him his ship is being stolen" (the Space Port was on the other side of the city, btw). I don't know what game they thought they were playing but it wasn't my Star Wars. A GM saying "no" to argumentative players who want to run the setting how they think it should work needs weapons in her arsenal to explain why a setting can have faster than light travel but still not be an Information Society. If you don't, then it's going to end up feeling very different to the Star Wars of the movies and TCW.