zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
This sounds like the final death blow to the web as a useful platform for anyone who isn't a corporation.

>>JohnFe+16
This is bad but how is it going to affect the usefulness of my personal web site, that will never use that API to check who's reading it, not or human? Same thing for a lot of sites, probably the vast majority of them.

>>pmontr+x8
One day Google may well flag your sure as lower security, refuse to let you show ads, or disappear you from search results.

>>afandi+7a
You already get flagged as hazardous and uncool for not using https, even on a perfectly-static site.

Some of us called that out as a slippery slope leading to ubiquitous gatekeeping, but we were shouted down in the name of (as usual) "security."

>>Camper+1c
That is because without https, there is no guarantee that the site requested is bring delivered as the site intends. For example, an ISP could insert data or scripts into the page.

>>garden+Ch
Then make laws to force your ISPs to be neutral carriers and prosecute any pulling shit. Most of the world doesn't have this problem yet we are still forced to waste countless of cycles and man-hours on TLS for public read-only content.