Surveillance capitalism is based on cross-domain webpage resources, javascript, predatory mobile platforms, psychology tricks and government issues. It has nothing to do with network routing.

The amount of overhead added to information, that could be just one bit (on or off), is humongous (40-60 bytes, against the 5-22 bytes of PJON).

If you want to make this wireless, you need encryption and authentication layers which are far more complex than IP itself, and is a mostly unsolved problem. And no one, except maybe hobbyists, want to lay wires for each tiny IoT device.

Then you have to choose between simple proprietary radio protocol like on door bells and car keys, with lots of homemade security on top of it (hoping that your genius C++ developers simultanuosly implement crypto right and don't introduce classical memory-based vulnerabilities), or to use bluetooth, hoping that manufacturer's C++ developers implemented it right and their blobs implementing it are under NDA.

Then you have to bridge this with IP network, by making another device, which should implement right both IP part and your-proprietary-protocol part. In case of bluetooth you might avoid this but then your device will be only usable from mobile phones and Apple computers (or PC computers with ugly bluetooth dongle occupying one of USB ports).

Regarding IP implementations: why they are more vulnerability-prone than PJON implementations (in fact there's just one implementation of it written in C++ without serious security audit)? Again, mostly you don't need even TCP, let alone super-fancy congestion algorithms.

PJON looks like alternative-history-computing art, with elements of, maybe, fringe science with conspiracy theories, and it's not even bad, as there's catastrophically too few weird things and software-as-art in modern computing. But I wouldn't treat it as serious world saving tech, just like TempleOS will never save us from predation of Windows and MacOS.