|
|
|
|
|
|
by tylerhou
3038 days ago
|
|
|
His arguments are also legitimately absurd. He says "if Google succeeds, it will make a lot of the web's history inaccessible", which is patently false given the fact you can always still access HTTP websites, not to mention that services like archive.org and Google's own cache exist. He then makes the argument that HTTPS will make it such that only "super nerds" will be able to create websites. But right now I can host my own blog on services like Netlify and get an HTTPS certificate for multiple domains with one click. If I want my own server it literally takes two seconds for me to set up certbot and get certificates for free. Then he makes a odd and somewhat rambling comparison to the Grand Canyon. He then argues that Google labeling HTTP as not secure is the first step down a path which leads to "blocking the pages outright", which is a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy. In another blog post he argues that by applying Occam's razor, it's clear that Google just wants to protect their ad revenue (because HTTPS would allow ISPs to replace Google's ads with their own). Which honestly sounds insane. I'm really surprised that this person is a software developer. I'm even more surprised that he still believes this stuff after working for 24 years. |
|
|
I'm really surprised that you think everyone has/should have(?) the same beliefs about such things.
He then argues that Google labeling HTTP as not secure is the first step down a path which leads to "blocking the pages outright", which is a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy.
20 years ago people thought buying computers on which you can't install software some central authority didn't approve of was preposterous, and yet here we are today with walled gardens and the like. This is a rise of authoritarianism, all in the name of "security". The frog boils slowly.