3 ms·

>assuming you don't want to implement network level content blocking? // Who doesn't want that? I have a pihole (and use OpenDNS). Bypassed it all yesterday, a

>assuming you don't want to implement network level content blocking? // Who doesn't want that? I have a pihole (and use OpenDNS). Bypassed it all yesterday, as an experiment, to look at an anime site my eldest started using and immediately was hit with a pretty impressive and convincing phishing attempt (mimicking my ISP). Pretty much all of us on HN seem to use some form of 'DNS' based filtering (pihole, or even just hosts file). UK ISPs offer DNS based filtering as a default (and have to filter some pages by law, and are encouraged to filter others [through threat of law]) ... but a lot of people want that, many many families, schools, businesses. Certainly I don't want it to be easier for advertising and malware to bypass my chosen DNS-style filtering.

shawnz 6y ago
I don't want it and I don't recommend it to my peers. I also don't think DNS-based content blocking is really as popular as the PiHole community would say. I use client-side content blocking like uBO instead, which I imagine is overwhelmingly the more common solution, and it is also more powerful and effective (and easier to use). UK ISPs having mandatory DNS blocking is a great example of why DoH is important. The user should decide what they want, not the network operator. Perhaps widespread use of encryption technologies means I can't do content blocking on proprietary appliances like the Chromecast for example. I think that's a necessary evil and I just won't buy such an appliance if it's that big of a problem. Only legislation can really fix that kind of problem anyway, it doesn't really matter whether Firefox implements DoH or not.