[moviuro]

1. webpages are fat, and no many care [0] Some other recent HN submissions compared page weight to the number of words in Moby Dick - and it's just as bad as one can think.

2. Blaming HTTPS is stupid. Intercepting http without the user knowing was a bad practice to begin with. Setting your own computer to use an HTTPS proxy sounds reasonable, though I understand it's quite a PITA. Having the user jump through difficult and scary messages could be a good feature IMO: "Setting up an https proxy can compromise your information such as bank account numbers, your passport information, your religious and political penchants, etc." As for technological solutions for one's home or organization: see Squid, which does provide examples [1].

[0] Wikipedia does care actually as it uses local cache a lot, and text-only articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu used only 271 kB; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States is around 5MB)

[1] https://wiki.squid-cache.org/ConfigExamples/Intercept/SslBum...

[mehrdadn]

> Intercepting http without the user knowing was a bad practice to begin with.

It baffles me that you assert this as an absolute truth. This is just your opinion, shaped by the environment you've lived in. It is perfectly possible that another person just as sane and knowledgeable as you would have different priorities than you do, especially when their experiences are different than yours.

[m0nty]

> Intercepting http without the user knowing was a bad practice to begin with

A proxy and strict filtering of media files was essential when I ran a school's network using dual ISDN lines to connect to the Internet. Slightly analagous to the situation in OP except that it actually worked quite well.