[Nadya]

Some websites break if you try to access https:// - from my experience of using Https Everywhere.

It's a simple fix to whitelist the one website though. It doesn't break the Internet. It breaks sometimes, for some users, and is trivially fixable when it does break.

"Fundamentally breaking the internet", to me, is something that actually breaks the usability of the internet in a non-trivial-to-fix way for the end user where the end user isn't even in control of the fix. That's breaking the web.

Failing to support IE5 is "breaking the web" in the same way Https Everywhere breaks the web. In a way that is to be fixed on the user-end.

(Although sites that fail to serve over https:// should fix their site)

[colejohnson66]

There's probably a technical reason I'm unaware of, but why are you allowed to have HTTP and HTTPS handled differently (besides then encryption portion)?

[yardstick]

Technical reason: Multiple ports = multiple apps.

HTTP and HTTPS use different ports (TCP 80 and 443). You can run one web server application on the HTTP port serving content A, and a completely different web server application on the HTTPS port serving content B. With firewalls doing NAT port translation this could even result in HTTP requests going to a completely different machine than the HTTPS requests.

From a non-tech reason, there are some types of sites that the HTTPS content should never be available on a HTTP site. For example an online payment form. In such cases a sensible website will either disable HTTP entirely (and use a subdomain for secure content, rather than the top leve/ www. domain), or have a basic HTTP site that transparently redirects to the HTTPS version.

[jessaustin]

Servers can really do whatever they want, based on whatever they want. They can serve a different page to clients based on e.g. "Accept-Language": "en" might be a completely different page than "fr", rather than just a translation.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

That's just how it happened. And historically, it was common to put only the "important things" behind TLS. That never really made sense from a security perspective, but it certainly saved CPU cycles.

[c3833174]

I don't really like when I'm not able to read the news because HTTPS didn't want to collaborate with an unreliable connection.

[CydeWeys]

Because no one ever prohibited it (ignoring issues of whether that is a good idea), and it's way too late to change it now.