A blockchain doesn’t provide trust, though. A person who doesn’t understand technology doesn’t trust a distributed ledger, but they do trust their centralised bank because it’s regulated.
It provides "distributed trust", in the sense that you know no single person or group is in control and you trust the distributed consensus, in terms of ledger state and algorithm accuracy.
Current PoW chains, yes. Some other consensus schemes have higher threshold requirements to pull off a similar sort of attack, in particular you can look at Casper FFG and other byzantine fault tolerant PoS schemes.
There are some with lower threshold tolerance of these attacks based on the idea that they're unlikely and the added threshold doesn't actually add security. I don't know about that but some people seem to think so.
Maybe no single entity is literally in full control but large mining pools and the developers of the software both have extreme influence over the chain.
Less snark would be preferred to elicit a response, but yes- there are more cheap computers than people in the world, and smart phones are near ubiquitous even in very poor places. You simply don't have the life experiences to make this criticism. i.e. PRIVILEGE
Don't forget enough tech expertise to be able to use any of this crap in any "decentralized" way (if they all just use coinbase, where is that decentralization?)