3 ms·

So for one, if you're looking for an actual answer, dial it down a few notches. Your post is 18 minutes old as of me writing and you're already boasting about a

So for one, if you're looking for an actual answer, dial it down a few notches. Your post is 18 minutes old as of me writing and you're already boasting about a lack of replies. Two, you're likely misunderstanding the purpose of SSL and Let's Encrypt. It's not to protect you against the site you're talking to, it's to prevent man in the middle attacks on the way. It ensures you can't walk into a starbucks for an hour and walk away with dozens of facebook logins. Lastly, the big players don't use Let's Encrypt for reliability and customer service purposes. If you run a blog and your cert screws up, the 3 people visitng your site that week will have to click a few extra buttons to get in. If you're a microsoft, that can mean thousands if not millions of users hitting this wall they expect not to have, leading to huge costs for customer support and occassionally deeper issues updating certificates. Exactly the same reason Bank of America doesn't use godaddy.com for their domain name. Before Let's Encrypt, certs cost money from certificate authorities, so not many smaller companies would bother. Now it's streamlined enough that browsers throw scary warnings if you don't have it, which is a massive improvement for everyone using the web.

doublerabbit 4y ago
> Before Let's Encrypt, certs cost money from certificate authorities, so not many smaller companies would bother. Now it's streamlined enough that browsers throw scary warnings if you don't have it, which is a massive improvement for everyone using the web. But should they? I never had any issues running an internet site before this was required. A blog doesn't need SSL. Why are ISP's not more scrutinized to ensure that MITM doesn't happen? Why is it put upon the admin? My blog from 2005 was never hit with MITM. > If you're a microsoft, that can mean thousands if not millions of users hitting this wall they expect not to have, leading to huge costs for customer support and occassionally deeper issues updating certificates. Exactly the same reason Bank of America doesn't use godaddy.com for their domain name. So your saying LE is only worth for small-class sites such as "blogs", which than I above said, Why does a blog need SSL? The only reasoning I had which was valid was that "ISP's inject" and if that's the case why are ISP's allowed to get away with injection? > Your post is 18 minutes old as of me writing and you're already boasting about a lack of replies. Folks like to down-vote and never reply. I'm sure I might be "flagged" soon too. > Two, you're likely misunderstanding the purpose of SSL and Let's Encrypt. Not at all, SSL is the communications protocol. A encrypted-tunnel example made by HTTPS. Verified by a Certificate if we apply laymans terms. LetsEncrypt issues that certification based on the trusted root installed on your computer and if all valid, the brower throws a green badge. I can easily remove the LE root certificate and any LE encrypted site would be invalid.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > I'm sure I might be "flagged" soon too. Yes if you're going to deliberately flamebait I will flag you. That's not you winning. You made things worse for everyone.
  - doublerabbit 4y ago
    > That's not you winning. You made things worse for everyone. I've made nothing worse for anyone. Those who made it worse for everyone are internet walled gardens and monopolies. If the internet wasn't as corrupted as it now and you deny, telling me Google isn't evil? We would be in a better place with enhancements without the the need for SSL. However not so, evil and mass greed ruined the internet for all since the 80's; heck the 70's. No, not flame-baiting. Am I not allowed my own view based on my own thoughts? Or am I not allowed free-thought? I'm happy to read everyone's else and take that in. But your denying my own? There's no flame, those opinions are of my own and may not be correct in your eyes but I am still allowed to have.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > Those who made it worse for everyone are internet walled gardens and monopolies. I'm just talking about this conversation being worse. > you deny, telling me Google isn't evil? I didn't say anything about Google. > No, not flame-baiting. Am I not allowed my own view based on my own thoughts? Or am I not allowed free-thought? I'm happy to read everyone's else and take that in. But your denying my own? There's no flame, those opinions are of my own and may not be correct in your eyes but I am still allowed to have. You posted "No answers for me? Just what I thought." with the specific intent of annoying people into replying.
      - doublerabbit 4y ago
        > You posted "No answers for me? Just what I thought." with the specific intent of annoying people into replying. I'll agree to disagree on that, the reason is that folk blindly down-vote. It's infuriating. If I hold opinion A which is incorrect, when opinion B could be correct, I then wouldn't get possibly a corrected perspective. At least it sparks a reaction and sights conversation, regardless if annoyance. It allows myself to express how I feel and why I feel. Rather than the hive-mind mentality that if everyone is doing it, its the right think. > I'm just talking about this conversation being worse. How? I expressed my opinion. It may not be right, it may be controversial, you may disagree. Yet your post came off as you should have supreme control, you do have many karma points but that still doesn't dictate. I don't doubt your intelligence, nor interactions, myself I am only 33, still learning the world. For all I know you could be god if you believe in such a thing. > you deny, telling me Google isn't evil? I'm was laying my beliefs based on the misunderstanding of your post. I misunderstood how "conversation being worse" it happens. However that again is another controversial opinion that the internet is within a very crippled state, for such pointed out above. Again, you may disagree. Your entitled to such opinion you believe, I'm disappointed that if you did flag me, or that such a feature blocks because what I laid out wasn't out to be argumentative but as free-thought opinion. Maybe more emotional and cynical of than what it should of been but still. Words are tricky and no one person is an expert. Regardless, mutually. Have a good night

doublerabbit 4y ago

> Before Let's Encrypt, certs cost money from certificate authorities, so not many smaller companies would bother. Now it's streamlined enough that browsers throw scary warnings if you don't have it, which is a massive improvement for everyone using the web. But should they? I never had any issues running an internet site before this was required. A blog doesn't need SSL. Why are ISP's not more scrutinized to ensure that MITM doesn't happen? Why is it put upon the admin? My blog from 2005 was never hit with MITM. > If you're a microsoft, that can mean thousands if not millions of users hitting this wall they expect not to have, leading to huge costs for customer support and occassionally deeper issues updating certificates. Exactly the same reason Bank of America doesn't use godaddy.com for their domain name. So your saying LE is only worth for small-class sites such as "blogs", which than I above said, Why does a blog need SSL? The only reasoning I had which was valid was that "ISP's inject" and if that's the case why are ISP's allowed to get away with injection? > Your post is 18 minutes old as of me writing and you're already boasting about a lack of replies. Folks like to down-vote and never reply. I'm sure I might be "flagged" soon too. > Two, you're likely misunderstanding the purpose of SSL and Let's Encrypt. Not at all, SSL is the communications protocol. A encrypted-tunnel example made by HTTPS. Verified by a Certificate if we apply laymans terms. LetsEncrypt issues that certification based on the trusted root installed on your computer and if all valid, the brower throws a green badge. I can easily remove the LE root certificate and any LE encrypted site would be invalid.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> I'm sure I might be "flagged" soon too. Yes if you're going to deliberately flamebait I will flag you. That's not you winning. You made things worse for everyone.
- doublerabbit 4y ago
  > That's not you winning. You made things worse for everyone. I've made nothing worse for anyone. Those who made it worse for everyone are internet walled gardens and monopolies. If the internet wasn't as corrupted as it now and you deny, telling me Google isn't evil? We would be in a better place with enhancements without the the need for SSL. However not so, evil and mass greed ruined the internet for all since the 80's; heck the 70's. No, not flame-baiting. Am I not allowed my own view based on my own thoughts? Or am I not allowed free-thought? I'm happy to read everyone's else and take that in. But your denying my own? There's no flame, those opinions are of my own and may not be correct in your eyes but I am still allowed to have.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Those who made it worse for everyone are internet walled gardens and monopolies. I'm just talking about this conversation being worse. > you deny, telling me Google isn't evil? I didn't say anything about Google. > No, not flame-baiting. Am I not allowed my own view based on my own thoughts? Or am I not allowed free-thought? I'm happy to read everyone's else and take that in. But your denying my own? There's no flame, those opinions are of my own and may not be correct in your eyes but I am still allowed to have. You posted "No answers for me? Just what I thought." with the specific intent of annoying people into replying.
    - doublerabbit 4y ago
      > You posted "No answers for me? Just what I thought." with the specific intent of annoying people into replying. I'll agree to disagree on that, the reason is that folk blindly down-vote. It's infuriating. If I hold opinion A which is incorrect, when opinion B could be correct, I then wouldn't get possibly a corrected perspective. At least it sparks a reaction and sights conversation, regardless if annoyance. It allows myself to express how I feel and why I feel. Rather than the hive-mind mentality that if everyone is doing it, its the right think. > I'm just talking about this conversation being worse. How? I expressed my opinion. It may not be right, it may be controversial, you may disagree. Yet your post came off as you should have supreme control, you do have many karma points but that still doesn't dictate. I don't doubt your intelligence, nor interactions, myself I am only 33, still learning the world. For all I know you could be god if you believe in such a thing. > you deny, telling me Google isn't evil? I'm was laying my beliefs based on the misunderstanding of your post. I misunderstood how "conversation being worse" it happens. However that again is another controversial opinion that the internet is within a very crippled state, for such pointed out above. Again, you may disagree. Your entitled to such opinion you believe, I'm disappointed that if you did flag me, or that such a feature blocks because what I laid out wasn't out to be argumentative but as free-thought opinion. Maybe more emotional and cynical of than what it should of been but still. Words are tricky and no one person is an expert. Regardless, mutually. Have a good night