> You seem to be presuming that a single "service" is necessary. A fully distributed alternative can just as well be considered a "service" if it can be plugge

> You seem to be presuming that a single "service" is necessary. A fully distributed alternative can just as well be considered a "service" if it can be plugged into a browser or OS to replace the default resolver. > The ISP learns about the result regardless right after the domain name has been resolved to an A/AAAA record, when the browser sends the TCP+SYN packet to start HTTPS. Cloudflare is working hard on closing that loophole. Thanks to their evil monopoly, hundreds of hostnames resolve to the same set of IP addresses. The only clue as to which of them a person is trying to visit is in the SNI header, which requires some serious deep-packet inspection to figure out. Even that is going to be encrypted soon. > That doesn't mean it will be a benefit for everyone. > Please stop using this cheap appeal to emotion that presumes one solution will help everyone. Who is this "everyone" that you keep talking about? Last time I checked, everyone and their cat was using Chrome. Chrome is planning to enable DoH in a future version only if it detects that you are already sending DNS queries to a service that supports DoH. No change of privacy there. The one browser that's planning to go full-time DoH with a partnership with Cloudflare is Firefox, an underdog with only 4% market share. So "everyone" is NOT being forced to adopt the same solution. People who want DoH can switch to Firefox. People who don't want it have several other browsers to choose from. It's a free market. Let companies experiment, and let people vote with their feet. Use something else or build something new if you don't like what's available. That was my whole point. There's so much negativity around the issue, one would have thought that somebody got caught red-handed colluding with the NSA or something :(