[Avamander]

You assume that you will _never_ read something that might be out in the open but at the same time the fact that you're reading it might be the thing that needs protecting? A public invitation to a protest against your autocratic government, for example?

[pKropotkin]

A public invitation to protest against my authoritarian government should not turn on total paranoia mode and cipher the opening hours of the local bakery. It's unnecessary I'd also like to remind you that the vast majority of e-mails are still unencrypted

[tialaramex]

> vast majority of e-mails are still unencrypted

Kinda sorta. In transit most email is encrypted, the big mail providers all both speak and expect TLS encryption when moving mail. Almost everybody configures TLS encrypted IMAP if they use a client, or reads email over HTTPS

> A public invitation to protest against my authoritarian government should not turn on total paranoia mode

The expectations ordinary people have for how the web works are not met by the basic HTTP protocol. They need HTTPS to deliver those basic assumptions. Who decides the hours of the local bakery? Is it Jeff Bezos? HTTP says that seems fine, but HTTPS says no, the bakery gets to decide, not Jeff.

[mailtls]

Yes, many providers use TLS with SMTP. But that works with self-signed certificates.

[Avamander]

Can you say that for everyone though, that they should have a local bakery and use its opening hours? There are also more cases than that, where something being public does not mean that someone should see you looking at that info.

While the situation with emails is worse it does not mean it should be like that.