1) It's not a given that a single panopticon is better than more than one. In my opinion "anybody can see the data" is a better scenario than "CloudFlare can mo

1) It's not a given that a single panopticon is better than more than one. In my opinion "anybody can see the data" is a better scenario than "CloudFlare can monetize the data". 2) I don't see why the workflow should be at risk of breaking if there's no good reason to introduce the new tool. Sure it's possible that requiring an animal sacrifice doesn't have to break their workflow, but why are we doing it in the first place? 3) Fully adopted IPV6 is less centralized than IPv4 since the larger address space allows for centralized layers(like nat) to be removed. IPv6 gateways in an ipv4 network would be more centralized since they would require traffic from many sources to be proxied through a single source. In the same vein, DoH that proxies many connection through a single source would be more centralized than not proxying those connections. The difference between DoH and updating DNS to support encryption is that the latter doesn't allow for a "CloudFlare" to exist on top of existing DNS infastructure which has exclusive access to unencrypted DNS data. > Wait, are you arguing that reducing the number of entities that can access our data is a bad thing It's a bit more nuanced than that. Adding doh proxies on top of existing DNS infasructure increases the number of entities that are required to access your data while decreasing the number that has access to the data to "number thats needed to function + the proxy". I'm arguing that the number of entities that have access to the data should be "number required to function" or "everyone", "number required to function plus the proxy" only benefits the proxy because they have exclusive access to data. Data is worth money the less people have access to it, so a solution that sends data through a proxy is rife for exploitation and not the best solution.