These are bogus arguments that sound reasonable in the absence of a relevant comparison but are all flimsy and uninformed upon inspection. For example, by what

These are bogus arguments that sound reasonable in the absence of a relevant comparison but are all flimsy and uninformed upon inspection. For example, by what definition would this not be 'safe'? Do you mean in comparison to Firefox's defaults, which enable profoundly privacy-invasive tracking, hide the contents of the cookie management dialog box, and enable the delivery of malvertising at will by visiting "safe" websites - just to name a few? MitM positions exist on the internet for all users today, both for HTTP and in the situation of "new HTTPS bugs". So you point out risks taken when using the internet in general, and the Tor Browser Bundle already mitigates many of those risks via NoScript and various patches. I've used Tor Browser Bundle daily for all purposes - including online banking and shopping - for several years with zero problems. Malicious exits exist and get flagged out of the network rapidly. Essentially all remaining risk is trivially defeated by toggling the 'block all unencrypted requests' pref in HTTPSEverywhere, which is part of the Tor Browser Bundle and could be built into an implementation in Firefox with a warning for HTTP traffic. And you're probably thinking of 2009-era Tor network experience. For me, Tor network performance routinely boils down to ~200ms additional latency with ~1.5-2MB/s download speeds. The difference between that and an average broadband connection is barely noticeable. I recommend using the Tor network and the Tor Browser Bundle before criticizing this idea.