As someone who has donated to Mozilla over the years and used Firefox as much as possible, this makes me very unlikely to donate in the future. People say that

As someone who has donated to Mozilla over the years and used Firefox as much as possible, this makes me very unlikely to donate in the future. People say that it's trivial to change. It's trivial to change for us who are technically minded. It's far from obvious and will not be changed by non-technical users. This will only increase the massive amount of data that Cloudflare gets about people's online behavior. I am always very skeptical of centralization and of having a company get this much information. Remember google's Don't be evil? I'm extremely uncomfortable with such a massive centralization of data. People might say that the status co is not great because DNS is sent to the ISP. I'd argue the status co is better because it's far less centralized. And, at least for Europeans, I trust European legislation better than US legislations. I can understand the argument that some countries have mass surveillance and it's a net positive for users in those countries since it will protect them. But in that case, I feel that the default should be randomized from a list of provider, not only one company. I also would be much less concerned by this if it was an option on first startup with a clear explanation (even though users tend to not read and blindly click accept, it's at least more of an informed consent) And anyway, that purpose of preventing mass surveillance and blocking in those countries where it would actually be useful seems to be moot because of: > Additionally, Mozilla is also working with ISPs to make sure users won't use DoH as a way to bypass legally-set blocklists. > The organization said it's been asking ISPs and providers of network-based parental control solutions to add a "canary domain" to their blocklists. When Firefox will detect that this canary domain is blocked, it will disable DoH to prevent the feature to be used as a filter-bypassing solution. So, if isp in countries with censorship can use a canary website to prevent users from bypassing "legally-set blocklists". What is the point again of enabling this?