> and it further makes it a lot easier to hide which data is extracted from a computer from the user. I don't understand this argument. If the world was "HTTPS

> and it further makes it a lot easier to hide which data is extracted from a computer from the user. I don't understand this argument. If the world was "HTTPS-optional" like it was 10 years ago, anything that wants to hide which data is extracted can still (optionally) implement HTTPS (or whatever encryption they please). So the only way this argument makes sense to me is if 'pushback against HTTPS' means ban encryption, and it seems to me that's not what you're saying. > The centralization it drives also creates unpleasant attack vectors for snooping governments. The internet is already heavily centralized around a couple of large IXes. Not having HTTPS will only make snooping governments' jobs easier. It doesn't matter to them whether their wiretaps are in CloudFlare's datacenter or in the IX next door, and they'd probably get greater coverage with the latter.