This is wrong on so many ways:

  - DoH is impacts a lot more than one area: child protection
  - what exactly would be lost?
    - is the filtering effective? No, anyone so inclined can just use a VPN
    - is there another way to achieve this even with DoH?
    Yes: resolve the URL filter hostnames, filter the IPs
  - faulty logic: we do X *with the intention* to stop bad Y, so don't do Z that hinders X

The issue here isn't really about DoH--it's whether the government can unilaterally decide that freedom of communicating privately is not a right.

Now let's see what's right(?) about this?

  - good political move to back something emotional people can agree with
    vs. something technical that most don't put in effort to understand privacy+tech
  - government seen as governing: good
  - sensational news, increases positive awareness/brand

I think the last point is key, technology has come up fast and most governments are not up to the task of understanding and making good decisions. The best they can do is try to look like they're doing good and try to maintain some some control in the hopes that it will result in the ability to stay in power. It would be like if a non-technical CEO of a corporation was in charge of all the security policies for their products.

Whenever these types of issues come up in the media, there's two concurrent discussions: one who understand the tech and implications and the rest of the population that reacts by proxy signals. Somehow these groups need to be connected without a distortion of the message.