[CydeWeys]

That doesn't follow. Sites that did not abide by those requirements simply would not work. The requirements are enforced by the browser.

The intention when registering such a domain name would be to follow said requirements, otherwise you wouldn't be able to use the domain name for hosting websites (though you could of course still use it for other services).

[dullgiulio]

Not to defend plaintext HTTP, but what you describe is a DNS registrar that mandates which services can be used with the registered domain... Would you buy a house where you cannot cook, only microwave?

[CydeWeys]

The house analogy doesn't really work as you could always install a stove. A better example would be "Why would you buy a plot of land that is zoned residential if you can't build an office building on it?" The answer is that you know what you're getting into before you buy it, and so you'd only buy it if you were building a house. If the restrictions are known up front then it's all good. I'd also like to point out that HSTS has very real security benefits, and if the entire TLD is already on the list then you don't have to go through the hassle of adding all your domains individually and waiting months for those updates to roll out widely. The expectation is that the pros vastly outweigh the cons.

[wongarsu]

There are already TLDs that restrict who can buy them or what kind of website you can run on them. How is mandating HTTPS categorically different?