Agreed, bet-fold or check-fold, and briefly think about a check-raise bluff (but I wouldn't don't do it with this hand, because I think we have lots of better candidates).

I think it's good that Hero thinks about how preflop ranges connect with flops. That said, poor playability on low-connected boards is more of a problem as a 3-bettor or tight opener than as a loose opener (presumably, Hero opens somewhat wide here). 

Also, in a Zoom game I would generally lean towards overbluffing against unknowns if I were in doubt. So bet-fold for me.

Villain can call (and raise) a lot in position vs a wide betting range, but he can't automatically exploit Hero by continuing with everything (as in, zero-equity hands).

For example, let's say you have a weak flop range, and you know Hero also does. You decide to call everything on the flop, planning to bet-fold all your air on the turn if he checks, and otherwise give up with those hands.

Hero can easily counter your exploitative flop floating strategy by simply always betting or check-raising turn. Now you can take it to the next level to exploit those exploits, but the point is that defending enough on the flop in isolation is no guarantee that you'll exploit his overbluffing there.

Note that:

1) Hero's preflop opening range is stronger than Villain's preflop calling range. This strength difference carries over to postflop play (although the flop type matters a lot). 

Hero's range isn't capped (Hero can always have the flopped nuts, and he has hands that will end up as the nuts on turns and rivers). Whereas Villain's range is sparse in premium high-card hands (since he didn't 3-bet), which will be important on certain flops. Villain's range does well on low flops, though, but that doesn't mean Hero is defenseless on those flops. 

2) Hero shouldn't bet all his total air on the flop, even if he's overbluffing. 

3) If Hero is playing well, he'll bet, c/c and c/r turns in such a way that it will be difficult for Villain to auto-profit from floating flops and stabbing turns with total air.

4) It could be that Villain is correct in defending close-to-zero-equity hands on the flop, but only if he plays turn/river perfectly versus Hero's turn/river strategy thereafter (floating a flop bet with air, without a plan for future streets, is unlikely to do you good). This is hard to pull off.

It's complicated to calculate exactly how wide Villain should defend vs c-bets, because we would need to solve the game for all the postflop streets (not each street in isolation), which is impossible. 

But what we can say is this: If Villain can profitably defend with his very worst hands, then Hero is making a mistake somewhere. But that mistake isn't necessarily confined to the flop. It could also be that he doesn't defend his range enough on future streets after getting called, even if he isn't overbluffing. 

I agree, ramping up the flop raising frequency should work well against overbluffers who are trying to exploit the population's overfolding tendencies in the simplest possible way.