Like the TSA at the airport.

Security that we never needed before, but now suddenly we do.

Now we’re dependent on a third party gatekeeper for permission to have a web site.

Free, for now.

It’s a move by the weasels-that-be to turn the Internet into yet another tool for profit and control.

  • spaghetti_carbanana@krabb.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 个月前

    Because prospective customers get shy when the browser says that your site is “insecure”

    Because it factually is insecure. It is not encrypted and trivial to inspect.

    Because it makes for better google ranking.

    No, in this day and age it is permission to play. Firefox has a built in feature to only load HTTPS sites, which I have enabled. This has nothing to do with Google. Your issue is with expensive CAs, to which there is a free solution (Let’s Encrypt). Not HTTPS itself.

    So there you go. Mob hype and googlian dictatorship.

    Incorrect. It is a matter of safety and security and a trivial thing to implement. You are free to not use HTTPS if you want, just as people are free to not consume your service if you don’t.

    Calling it a “dictatorship” is hyperbole and demonstrates that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and won’t listen to people that do.

    • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 个月前

      You seem to be stuffed and pacified with popular explanations that amount to marketing. And so confidently parroted. But that’s the internet for you.

      It’s the fact of relying on the whim of a third party gatekeeper for permission to run my site that bothers me. It appalls me that you people take this laying down.