You're off on a tangent about a separate article and a separate issue, but I'll digress.
>"In both cases, however, we should examine the issue on the merits of that issue, and neither support nor oppose merely because the "right" or "wrong" organization is pushing for it."
You're missing the point. In the article you're referring to Dave says "Google is a guest on the web, as we all are. Guests don't make the rules."
He's not advocating against HTTPS. He's advocating against Google pushing it down everyone's throat as the proprietor of the internet. And he's right in that if we allow Google to declare themselves the harbinger of digital trends then we're authorizing them to take it another step further. We're essentially endorsing the next stage, which would be to simply block http from Chrome or Android or whatever they feel like.
He goes on to state "If HTTPS is such a great idea...
Why force people to do it? This suggests that the main benefit is for Google, not for people who own the content. If it were such a pressing problem we'd do it because we want to, not because we're being forced to."
He's right again. He isn't saying HTTPS is bad for the internet. He's saying letting Google decide in a vacuum that HTTPS should be the only way to internet is bad.
>"In both cases, however, we should examine the issue on the merits of that issue, and neither support nor oppose merely because the "right" or "wrong" organization is pushing for it."
You're missing the point. In the article you're referring to Dave says "Google is a guest on the web, as we all are. Guests don't make the rules."
He's not advocating against HTTPS. He's advocating against Google pushing it down everyone's throat as the proprietor of the internet. And he's right in that if we allow Google to declare themselves the harbinger of digital trends then we're authorizing them to take it another step further. We're essentially endorsing the next stage, which would be to simply block http from Chrome or Android or whatever they feel like.
He goes on to state "If HTTPS is such a great idea... Why force people to do it? This suggests that the main benefit is for Google, not for people who own the content. If it were such a pressing problem we'd do it because we want to, not because we're being forced to."
He's right again. He isn't saying HTTPS is bad for the internet. He's saying letting Google decide in a vacuum that HTTPS should be the only way to internet is bad.