> increases it’s overhead by almost 100%. 3.8/2.9 kB is a 31% increase. 1.16/0.62 s is an 87% increase. But okay, let's round up to 100%. The article is cit

> increases it’s overhead by almost 100%. 3.8/2.9 kB is a 31% increase. 1.16/0.62 s is an 87% increase. But okay, let's round up to 100%. The article is citing a page that counter-argues this: > Sites with modern servers load faster over HTTPS than over HTTP because of HTTP/2. > https://istlsfastyet.com/ https://istlsfastyet.com/ --- > But what about sites like https://doesmysiteneedhttps.com https://doesmysiteneedhttps.com? While this website makes a few valid points, it still relies heavily on “fear tactics” that honestly don’t apply for the vast majority of users. It’s overkill. Sorry, but not good enough. 1. "a few valid points": you avoid making your visitors liable in oppressive environments (employers, regimes), you avoid very real content injection (commercial or malicious), and you give the visitor a way to know that content wasn't tampered. That's a few valid points. (The rest are counter-arguments.) 2. "fear tactics": not true. Protecting the integrity of your visitors and your content is nurture, not fear. 3. "don’t apply for the vast majority of users": by making HTTPS standard at practically no cost, you make it work for those for whom it matters. Just because I feel safe on Hacker News doesn't mean that any visitor who goes here will be treated fairly by reading my message.