> if I'm not logged into Wikipedia, and simply searching and reading articles, why does that need to be served under HTTPS either? Because we have already see

> if I'm not logged into Wikipedia, and simply searching and reading articles, why does that need to be served under HTTPS either? Because we have already seen tampering that could really cause some issues. Injecting ads, snooping on search info to target advertising, things like censoring specific articles or specific topics. Because of how global the internet is, regulation can't really solve many of it's issues (unless literally everyone can agree on the rules), so we need to solve them technically. Securing you to the server makes all of those things much more difficult. >By forcing every site to go HTTPS not only increases the cost of ownership (in time, and optionally, cost) but also adds complexity for small site owners, and completely goes against the open web ideal. Then let's solve those issues. Added complexity is not a reason to abandon TLS for most sites, it should be a goal to not only get TLS, but to make the process easier for the average joe to setup and run. By starting to push in the direction of "TLS everywhere" we are encouraging more automatic and easy ways of maintaining this stuff (just look at how far let's encrypt has come in such a short time! How long until it's a GUI program that even my grandfather can use?).