I mean, that’d be a major GDPR breach, be hard to extract any signal from because queries will usually be coming from a relay or from behind a NAT so you can’t tell who the query even originates from, and DNS is cached heavily too so you only get a small fraction of the queries anyway. I’m not seeing a way the calculus work in favor, basically.

OTOH the question of why they’d even run a public DNS is interesting, yeah. Running a public DNS is cheap and helps the Internet work better, and they make more money when the Internet works better since that adds up to more page views. Less charitably, though, it’s possibly just a thing from back when they were an engineering company first and foremost and did that kind of stuff, and now they can’t turn it off without breaking a lot of things and causing a lot of costly anger.

I’ll admit I’m not sure what the threat model is with 8.8.8.8.

I’m mildly offended that I can consistently be reduced to a blubbering mess by a show with literal fart-based plot points.

This is abhorrent, yet I’m intrigued.

Among other things: the global perception of the US sunk to unprecedented lows, below even China. The US’s most steadfast allies have all rejected requests for support. This is a different world now and it’s uncertain whether the US can regain its prior standing.

I studied at the PR in question and that’s not the conclusion I arrive at. Let me try to explain how this looks to me.

Also keep in mind, I do think we absolutely need to keep the political pressure on and push back on identity-gating policies with all our collective might. In that light the PR itself does the two things I’d absolutely require here: one, it allows the user to put whatever value they want in that field, including none at all, and two, it disallows all apps from reading that field without the user’s active permission.

Basically it’s a superficially valid implementation of a bullshit requirement that still leaves all the power in the user’s hands and therefore renders the requirement meaningless. Or in other words, a huge middle finger to the proponents of age-checking.

Mind you, I feel there’s also value in loud non-compliance and I’m glad some are taking that road – keep it up, folks. But I’m leery of demands that only one single approach be taken. This needs to be fought on every front we can. And to me the PR in question reads like an effective defensive move.