zlacker

> 1. You can't cache anymore.

You can, if the end-user client consents to it. Caching is also immensely difficult to get right, mistakes cause subtle and annoying issues. Even better, how about those ISPs invest some in the infrastructure in order not to fall over (if it's actually an issue) at the microscopic (by modern standards) bandwidth regular web browsing requires.

> 2. Governments and companies want to inspect traffic. Yes, I get that you don't want them to. But guess what? They do not care what you think. They will force it to happen one way or another, whether it's subverting internet standards, passing laws to defeat encryption or install backdoors, secretly compromising certificate authorities, hacking into the networks of large service providers, or just straight up requiring you to install a custom CA cert (what all companies do now).

So if they take such illegal actions, why make it easier for them? Sounds very defeatist.

> 3. Encryption is being used as a planned obsolescence lever.

Choose better software. A TLSv1.3 stack runs on even microcontrollers with a breeze.

> 4. Obviously, encryption is slower and more complicated than plaintext

It's actually much more straightforward than what's being protected by it. If anything, attack surface is *immensely* reduced to just the rigorously tested TLS libraries instead of all the HTTP, JS or multimedia code paths.

>>Avaman+(OP)

  > 1. You can't cache anymore.
  > You can, if 

IF you completely ignore the actual problems I listed and invent a different problem to solve and pretend that you're correct?

  > 3. Encryption is being used as a planned obsolescence lever.
  > Choose better software. 

First, it isn't better, it's just newer, and second, it doesn't matter whether or not you want better software. It matters whether a user or use case wants to continue to use an old device or software. If you start deciding for the user what they can or can't, should or shouldn't, do with their computer, now you've become an authoritarian/paternalist, which is objectively a bad thing to be.

>>0xbadc+cHa
> IF you completely ignore the actual problems I listed and invent a different problem to solve and pretend that you're correct?

Requiring consent of the device owner is not a problem, it's a goal.

> It matters whether a user or use case wants to continue to use an old device or software.

Not every use case has to matter for every site operator. That's such an entitled thing to expect it's absurd.

> If you start deciding for the user what they can or can't, should or shouldn't, do with their computer, now you've become an authoritarian/paternalist

No, it's not authoritarian or paternalist. You're still free to visit those sites that wish to support your use-case. It would be authoritarian if you'd force everyone to support some old shit for all eternity for no good reason.