zlacker

>>stargr+(OP)
This link and the two answers within demonstrate something important, broader than the DNS related issue at hand.

Both make implicit assumptions. One assumes the worst of Cloudflare and thinks “what’s the worst reason Cloudflare could have for doing this. How do they profit off this?” And the other assumes that Cloudflare has good intentions.

Neither answer is technically wrong. Both flow logically from their initial assumptions. But it shows how different our conclusions can be depending on where our initial biases lie. For the person who believes the first answer and says “prove to me that Cloudflare isn’t doing something nefarious”, it’s not possible. The analysis is correct and can’t be challenged unless the initial assumption is challenged. And for people who strongly believe that Cloudflare has bad intentions, nothing can be done to change their mind.

In this example it’s Cloudflare but it applies to any person or organisation that we feel strongly about.

>>nindal+K6
The second one is not an assumption, it's Cloudflare's official position. For a person who is against Cloudflare, I feel like this would only serve to reinforce the confirmation bias as there's seemingly no person except a Cloudflare employee willing to step up and defend the action.

So, yes, good observation.

>>chesch+F8
Arguably, no one except a Cloudflare employee could know the reason why they took this decision. A random person speculating “maybe they did this for privacy reasons” doesn’t strike me as better than Cloudflare saying “we did this for privacy reasons”.

And while the second answer is a statement, not an analysis the rest of what I said holds. You will only accept their statement as the truth if you assume good intent of them.

>>nindal+k9
Corporations operate for profit.

>>113+s9
Indeed - but there are other ways to make money than to sell of your personal information to the highest advertising bidder.

>>tedk-4+Q9
Such as, in Cloudflare's case, selling our service (the DDoS protection, the caching, the firewalling etc.) to companies that pay for that service because it helps them.

While at the same time working to preserve people's privacy with things like giving out SSL for free, pushing for eSNI, running a public DoH server, building a service that makes sure all data from your phone to us is encrypted etc. etc.

>>jgraha+ob
If you're trying to preserve people's privacy, why doesn't the 1.1.1.1 VPN service also mask originating IP?

>>tomp+ny
Warp isn't trying to "hide your IP from the sites you are visiting". It's there to help prevent intermediaries from observing your traffic. A huge percentage of the web is still unencrypted HTTP.

And Warp+ aims to be about that plus performance.

If you want to be totally anonymous on the Internet then I recommend you use Tor. If you just use a VPN then you may hide your IP address from sites you visit but there are tons of other fingerprinting techniques that can be used.

>>jgraha+CB
I understand all that, and you didn't answer my question. Why do you push the narrative that 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver protects user privacy (by hiding originating IP / subnet) whereas 1.1.1.1 VPN gladly reveals that data? In both cases, the destination is hidden to any eavesdroppers, but in the latter case (VPN) the source IP is visible to the destination website, whereas you keep insisting how vital it is to hide source IP in the former case (DNS).