[phyzome]

Well, HTTP has zero security, and HTTPS has this big complicated security mechanism (TLS) that tries to ensure no one can snoop on your connection, alter the content, or pretend to be a server they aren't.

There's no subjectivity at stake, here: One is designed without security, the other is designed with security.

It's like saying the Atacama Desert is widely considered to be drier than a thunderstorm.

[justicezyx]

I am not sure if you considered the intended audience of the article at all.

But if you think about that, the statement is about as good as it can be.

[taejo]

No: HTTPS is more secure than HTTP. This is true regardless of the intended audience.

Explaining why may be beyond a particular audience, but that doesn't justify weakening the truth with weasel words.

[phyzome]

The journalist could have simply put "is more secure"—this is objectively true!—but then they got nervous, perhaps because they didn't understand the subject well enough, and decided to fall back to hedge phrases.

The statement is not as good as it can be, because it introduces uncertainty where in reality there is none.

[gcb0]

but https against the great firewall (and its connection with state run dns/cert roots) is nothing but a nuisance.

[phyzome]

It's more than a nuisance to them because they have not yet gotten everyone to use their DNS roots. That's why they're blocking the BBC!

[londons_explore]

Having never tried Atacama Desert, I am going to guess it's like other desserts like trifle and mousse, which are in fact rather soggy.