It's a fact that with NATs, many nodes are hidden from the Internet -- it's in fact how it works. The only way for two hidden nodes to communicate with each other then, is through a central service. And the hiddenness (statefulness) is what caused you to think that CGNAT provides privacy.
So, in essence, you are already believing in my thesis! There's no agreeing nor disagreeing here, we are effectively on the same page but looking at the different sides of it.
As a side note, the early internet had a lot of P2P phenomenons, Napster etc were all based on the technology, but we don't see them nowadays except maybe BitTorrent. The entire Web 2.0 (so GOOGL, AMZN, etc) was built on the already-existing expectation that there is a central node somewhere.
So, in essence, you are already believing in my thesis! There's no agreeing nor disagreeing here, we are effectively on the same page but looking at the different sides of it.
As a side note, the early internet had a lot of P2P phenomenons, Napster etc were all based on the technology, but we don't see them nowadays except maybe BitTorrent. The entire Web 2.0 (so GOOGL, AMZN, etc) was built on the already-existing expectation that there is a central node somewhere.