We are still actively working on the spam issue.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:DNS"
m (OOPS) |
(→Google DNS) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[User:Galactus|— Galactus]] ([[User talk:Galactus|talk]]) 01:03, 5 March 2016 (EST) | [[User:Galactus|— Galactus]] ([[User talk:Galactus|talk]]) 01:03, 5 March 2016 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | No, but for anons living in censored countries it's still a step up. As much as I distrust google, they did enable revolutions via their dns. | ||
| + | Privacy conscious anons are probably vpnning or torring anyway, which automates alternative dns selection. | ||
| + | How about we add a sentence/warning/something to note that google isn't to be fully trusted, rather than exclude them completely? [[User:Mrsnooze|Mrsnooze]] ([[User talk:Mrsnooze|talk]]) 01:10, 5 March 2016 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 08:10, 5 March 2016
Is this article even needed when we already have Anonymising Yourself and DNSCrypt? It's terribly worded and an absolute mess. It would be quicker to write it from scratch at this point, or outright mix-and-match those two articles.
-- Galactus (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2015 (EST)
- I've made a redirect page for DNS page to Anonymising Yourself#DNS. --Morpheus (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2015 (EST)
Google DNS
Do you genuinely believe privacy conscious users should use google's DNS?
— Galactus (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2016 (EST)
No, but for anons living in censored countries it's still a step up. As much as I distrust google, they did enable revolutions via their dns. Privacy conscious anons are probably vpnning or torring anyway, which automates alternative dns selection. How about we add a sentence/warning/something to note that google isn't to be fully trusted, rather than exclude them completely? Mrsnooze (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2016 (EST)
