I don’t think people remember the days when ISPs/free wifi hotspots would inject their own ads into the content of pages served over http, or replace urls on YouTube content to show lower resolution copies of videos.
This German webhost does not include SSL in it's bare bones package without surcharge. Thus my kita had no SSL certificate, and thus I could detect my ISP or some hacked router injecting ads (Berlin) when I used that site.
There are plenty of local http sites due to German's (reasonable) distrust of US companies and a propensity to roll their own
> This is not an argument in favour of a search engine/browser penalizing HTTP servers.
Why isn't it? By navigating to a domain (or searching for it), the user is arguably making an intent statement ("I want content on $domain"). Ensuring that the user doesn't get spam, malware, etc. instead seems well within the scope of the browser.
It may be in the browser's interest when the majority of their userbase is non-tech. I'd rather my mom use such a browser than one which does not enforce it.
"Yeah, whatever, feel free to die fighting against it"
I think advocating against somethig, generating a discussion, moving the Overton window is a valid, almost necessary thing. (I admit sometimes they threaten the things I like (or me), but most of the time, it's OK.)
Perhaps "agreeing" was a bad choice of word, instead discussing, debating, or just letting me know your opinion about the matter.
