I am not bothered that much by the fact that two observers describe the same phenomenon differently. Something similar , in principle , happens with simultaneity in special relativity, and special relativity is a necessity based on experimental data that led to Maxwell's equations and the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum.
I think that the (mathematical ) existence of the singularity inside a black hole is due to the inadequacy of the equations of GR (otherwise successful when quantum effects are negligible) related to what happens close to the center of a black hole, quantum gravity will eventually take care of that problem (hopefully ).
The fact that Alice merrily passes the EH and gets torn apart by gravitational tidal forces (and eventually by the "singularity"), while Bob "thinks" (based on the information he receives far from the black hole ) that Alice's bits (or qubits ) of information content are spread over the EH of the black hole (after an eternity has passed for him ), I don't see that as a big problem either , they just describe the universe from different perspectives. ref. 1
The black hole information paradox is a more difficult problem, though. How do you reconcile unitarity in QM (information conservation, and reversibility of physical laws ) with the fact that no information leaks from beyond the EH of a black hole, this is the main problem, as far as I can see, right? .
Hawking radiation (related to entangled virtual particles at the EH) , the firewall problem , these are several attempts to solve the problem. ref. 2
Every accelerating system generates gravitational waves, so in principle (emphasis on "in principle ") even a proton crossing the EH of a black hole generates gravitational waves (as faint and undetectable as they may be ), that can encode information about the matter falling into a black hole. So even this more difficult problem might allow solutions , in principle. Am I missing something here?
Question: Could the persistent effects of gravitational waves solve the black hole information paradox?ref. 3