> There definitely are use-cases where HTTP would be faster/cheaper/easier/simpler/etc, but the move to ban HTTP takes all that in to account, and argues that banning it is still a good idea because the implications for privacy are simply more important than any of those issues.
Where are these arguments? I haven't seen any argument that acknowledges that we are losing a big part of what made the web initially great; that it was dead simple to create your own website.
I'd respect the https-only crowd if they would acknowledge this as a legitimate big loss. But instead they seem to ignore it. I think they are just ignorant to the needs of anyone but their large corporate employers.
How much more difficult is it to get and set up a cert, compared to getting and setting up a domain? It's a hurdle, but not large compared to the existing system, as far as I see it.
But that's only if you want your own domain. Back then, people used Angelfire and Geocities, and so can you nowadays use Neocities (great project!) and get HTTPS without doing anything.
Where are these arguments? I haven't seen any argument that acknowledges that we are losing a big part of what made the web initially great; that it was dead simple to create your own website.
I'd respect the https-only crowd if they would acknowledge this as a legitimate big loss. But instead they seem to ignore it. I think they are just ignorant to the needs of anyone but their large corporate employers.