1. This is not true. IPv4 address exhaustion has not been "solved". NAT _works_, but causes tons of problems. 2. Also false. Upsides include more speed (due to

1. This is not true. IPv4 address exhaustion has not been "solved". NAT _works_, but causes tons of problems. 2. Also false. Upsides include more speed (due to ISPs usually having newer infra for IPv6), cheaper addresses (for people who want static ones), and I'm sure there are more benefits I can't think of. 3. This one is true, but I've never heard anyone say that's why we need IPv6 (that could just be me though). 4. Then don't expose them to the internet. Your network is still behind a router/firewall, and the device in question (hopefully) can be configured. 5. I'm not sure what you mean by "less powerful" here - NAT was never good at protecting privacy anyways. Anyone who wants to track you has been doing it without IP for a long time. Further, you can still have a NAT if you want one, and IPv6 offers random/temporary addresses. 6. True! Big tech has a vested interest in undermining our privacy, but please see above. I also think, in this instance, it's genuinely because IPv6 is better than 4.