Home | Save HTTP !
Save HTTP !

... because some people need it.

0: Table of Contents

1: What is this text about? (Introduction)

The simple old HTTP web protocol (the dialog used by browsers to fetch web pages from servers) is getting exterminated by ever more web admins. By blocking it, or usually redirecting it to HTTPS. This is meanwhile the case at over 90% of all web sites.

Reason for this is, according to statements by various admins, that they, out of fear of the state, want to encrypt all web traffic (which HTTPS does). As long they only did this with their own web traffic, and offered it to others for facultative use, it did not matter.

This is not so any more. They are now forcing others to use HTTPS. This however gives massive problems, as cryptography is difficult to implement and in particular it decays fast. Which throws people with alternative or old software (or computers which use such) out of the web. No matter what reasons they have for the use of such:

The aim here is thus, to save HTTP from extermination. Simply because many people still want to keep it or even need it. As without HTTP some 15 to 50 million affected users are by now getting thrown out of over 90% of the web!

Attempts, to bring these web admins to their senses, have over 2 years failed. More than 90% of the addressed have completely refused to take notice of any arguments. This mainly with statements, that the "great danger" justifies such measures. Complaints, that the danger is neither large nor the measures justified, are rejected. The same happened to complaints, that "protection" which damages more than it protects in not protection.

Because of that situation this awareness campaign is now being run. It is aimed at the general public. It should inform people about the acts, which are being perpetrated hidden from general view. Aim of this is, to by this means create enough pressure, to correct the problem:

Aim of the campaign is thus, to unite all interested parties into an alliance of the open. Aimed against the web admins, who from fear of imagined attackers want to close everything down. This no matter what it may cost some uninvolved users in loss of the web.

This text has been deliberately written as basic text covering all aspects, so as to be usable as a "buffet". It can thus be linked to from other texts, so that others taking part can extract and extend whichever aspects they consider important. They can also write shorter articles, without their readers losing access to stuff they have left out. Because of this the text is fairly large, about 40 pages A4.

2: What is the current situation?

To web surf you need, in addition to a computer and an internet connection as base, a browser and its HTTP connection to the web server. HTTP is simple and implementable by any programmer. The web was thus able to spread so fast and wide, because many different browsers were creatable, on all types of computers, even on 1980s 8bit computers.

It has though a small weakness, in that everything is transmitted openly. This can be problematic in some borderline cases, such as with credit card numbers or accounts with passwords. To solve this HTTPS was developed. But that is complicated and uses demanding specialized cryptographic mathematics. It is thus difficult to implement, or even by lack of understanding can not be implemented at all by most programmers. Thus some older and also smaller new browsers and systems do not offer HTTPS.

Far worse, because it is based on cryptography to hide data, it decays fast und repeatedly, even where it is present. This because the used cryptographic algorithms keep on getting broken, by cryptoanalysts. Against this problem new routines get developed, by cryptographers. Followed by these again getting broken, requiring more new ones. All this as part of the war of cryptographic hiding and breaking. Behind this problematic stands the financing of the entire military command structures and the spying agencies of all countries! Which practically guaranties, that this situation will continue to remain unchanged.

HTTPS as a protocol may now be some 20 years old, and widely spread since about 10 to 15 years. But the cryptographic algorithms used apparently have a life cycle of only about 5 to 10 years. This becomes noticeable, when phones and tables from 2012 and computer browsers from 2011 begin to fail in 2018, after only 6 or 7 years. On some web sites they already bring a "no common algorithm" error message, which means that all algorithms implemented then are by now disabled on these sites. It can be assumed because of these being broken or at least considered too weak. (With a computer browser from 2003 after 12 years in 2015 this was the case on practically 100% of all web sites.)

(Background of this: Anyone who asks why algorithms keep on breaking needs to look at the mathematics behind them. The public key (PK) cryptography, used on the web, is based on creating multiple long random numbers. From these two numbers are derived with formulas F1 and F2, called public and private key. For using these applies: Data + formula F3 + public key = Secured, so that Secured + formula F4 + private key = gives the Data back. For this the four formulas F1+F2+F3+F4 must be created so that one can not reconstruct the private key from the public one, and also not the random numbers which by using Formula F2 would lead to it. Strictly speaking this is impossible, because every formula has a reverse, so also F1 has a reverse-F1! But there exists maths, where no reverse-F1 method is known, which can be computed with present day available processor power. Cryptoanalysts search for new mathematical methods to achieve such reversing using present day processor power. On the other hand cryptographers also search for new formula sets F1+F2+F3+F4, for which no known reverse-F1 exist. There exist therefore only two types of PK crypto: Those already broken and those not yet broken. Objective of his is, to retire such from own use before the adversary breaks them, and to break the adversaries ones before they notice this and retire them. All this with massive financing behind it, to convert the later into former. Thus there is a continuous arms race in the cryptographic war, which makes repeated replacement necessary.)

Even where HTTPS is available, it needs continuous software updates to be able to take part. After latest 5 years (if one wants to use be able to use all HTTPS web sites) or 10 years (if one wants to use even be able to use any of them). With modern mass market browsers this is no problem. But many developers of small browsers or systems can not keep up with this. Older not any more maintained browsers or systems have no chance at all. Only a few large new ones can do this.

Taking part thus requires giving up of existing and choice of new computers and software. But especially software allows massive choice, because it can be written and copied by many. It is free of limitations from mass production and its financing. Only a single development has to take place, after that the rest is only copying. The entire Open Source software like Linux originated from this. Such choice is already endangered by featurism, because this increases the work to produce software, and thus reduces choice offered. But this problem only applies to single sites, which use new features so badly, that they fail to support older simpler browsers. Such failure is also gradual, from not optimal rendering, over single features failing, up to entire site becoming unusable.

Cryptography and HTTPS add to this massively difficult technology and repeated replacement, always with total failure. This increases the bad trend massively. In the meantime with the large majority of over 90% of sites being affected, not just single ones. In the end what remains is a small selection of large mass taste software.

Cryptography and HTTPS are not really need for most things. One can avoid them for normal web usage, and continue to use HTTP. Only for a few special sites, where HTTPS in neccessary, one can use a secondary browser or even a secondary computer. Or simply don't use such sites, don't use web shops with credit cards (only such with pay per bill), don't have accounts with critical data and passwords (uncritical only for preferences are problemless). For all other sites one could continue surfing with HTTP, which is most of the web, way over 90%.

That is how it has been done for decades, HTTPS only used by those who wanted its special features, avoided by those who didn't need it, because they only did things without it. Everyone lived as he wanted and could, and let others live how they want and can. This was for a long time was no problem for anyone, all could arrange themselves with it and choose what was best suited their requirements.

The situation has changed now, since from about 2015 on many web admins are enforcing HTTPS. These admins demand that HTTP has got to disappear, all web traffic must be with HTTPS. They force all visitors of their servers, by closing down HTTP, thus making access impossible. To stay inconspicuous, instead of giving a visible "no server" error message when HTTP is used, they usually place an underhanded HTTPS Redirect (automatic detour). Browsers which can use HTTPS follow this detour silently, and the majority of users, with sufficiently new mass market browsers, notice nothing of this measure. But this forces all users to take part in HTTPS, no matter if somes browsers fail because of this, no matter how large their problems are.

Such web admins allow usually also with HTTPS only newest cryptoalgorithms. Old ones are not even allowed as fallback, despite that HTTPS actually provides for this, simply prefers newer if these are present. This because admins, which close down HTTP as "great danger", have before already disabled old algorithms, because these are "too old". A quote from one such admin: "I only use the best algorithms" (which together with his "newer = better" thinking also means "only the newest"). Annother quote after: "Open is not at all such". (Which suggests, that the algorithms which they have switched off after a few years may not even be broken. Thus this in addition to enforced HTTPS is also enforced newest HTTPS, with the former only laying the base of the problem, and the later making it far worse.)

This results in pressure on everyone to repeatedly update to newest HTTPS. No matter if they could get into problems. No matter how large the problems, no matter if some do not want or even can update. No matter that for some it means being thrown out of the web. Criticism of this behaviour simply gets answered with "go and update". Criticism that this is not always possible is simply disregarded. And because of the underhanded Redirect the majority doesn't notice anything of all this. It remains an act hidden from view, despite in the meantime widely spread:

Even worse, it is starting to expand from the web to mail, with enforced TLS there. With same problematic if no TLS is available or it is just too old. I first heard mention of this in 2018, and first met a first case myself in 2019. Mail with enforced TLS thus has about the same spread as web with enforced HTTPS had in 2015.

Should it continue like this, the result will lead to exclusion from the web and mail, for all users who do not or can not upgrade, as such admins demand it. Anyone who understands, what the net has given all, recognizes how such a closing out massively harms all affected. Strictly the World Wide Web (that is what the WWW means!), which was open for all, is secretly getting replaced by a crypto limited web, in which only those who use sufficiently new crypto will be entitled to access. Which will harm a lot of people. As consequence of this the affected are now defending themselbes against getting this damage inflicted. This campaign exists, to show up a mainly hidden problem, to get it corrected before it is too late.

3: Who are affected by this situation?

All this would not be a problem, if no one were affected by it. But many are. Exactly because people are so diverse, enforced encryption with its consequences strikes in various situations in various ways for each of them. The "go and upgrade" dictatorship collides everywhere where someone does not want to or for some reason can not upgrade. This includes all with old software (or old computer with such on it), no matter for what reason they use these. In some special situations even new computers and software can be affected. I know in the meantime about an entire spread of users types, but there surely exist even more unknown to me.

3.1: No updates available

Directly this hits all who can not get any updates. Not every manufacturer still exists for every device that is still in use. Or even if they still exist they have no interest in offering updates for an old product, preferring instead to sell a new one. This happens in particular ever more often with tablets and phones. Computers more often get system upgrades with updates to those, if the drivers still run on older ones. It is therefore simply not possible to update everything. Only replacement is possible, at a cost of loss of property. The users of such devices want to weigh the sure loss of the device against the questionable gain in security. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if they can not use their existing, as long as they can not be spied on while it happens!".

(This is for me an important point: Both my phone and tablet, from 2012, are from manufacturers that do not exist any more. I therefore have no updates, and am getting at ever more problems on web sites with too new HTTPS.)

3.2: Financial Limits

Such replacement hits even more all who can simply not afford new for themselves. Not everyone can regularly replace all computer and tablet and phone. Some can even only afford computers/tablets/phones which others have thrown away, and these usually have a certain age. Some, due to lack of own, only use devices which are provided to the public. Often the sort of organisations which do this are financially limited. Anyone who believes, that computers have today become so cheap, that anyone can without problems buy new ones, should look at the situation of the majority of people in third world countries. In Africa today a smartphone can be more important than a car! But also in rich countries some people live at the edge of existance.

Specially for people with little money the Internet is extremely important, because otherwise they have little. That situation also applies here at us, as ever more things end up on the net because of providers cutting cost. Old paper versions completely disappear, or at least get burdened with ever more and increasing charges. So losing access to the web also gets expensive, or even entirely lost. Without a computer, getting pushed to the side or even entirely out of society, is in the meantime known as Digital Divide. This is now getting increased, already to those without a new enough computer. Those affected by this want to keep what they have achieved. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if they can not afford to surf, or be part of society, as long as they can not spied on while it happens!".

3.3: Special equipment

The problem also hits all who need special equipment or browsers, for example disabled persons, such as the blind who use speech output that can convert text but fails at reproducing pictures. Not everyone can get a fitting replacement for existing, or such is limited by the finances of aid organisations. For these the Internet is even more important, because it gives them access to lots of ptherwise unreadable information. This also applies when just wanting to have special user interfaces, such as some Autists and Asperger Syndrome who want to avoid modern overstimulating GUI designs. For these the Internet is just as important, because it gives them time and space, to use their fitting methods. More generally accessibility or barrier free applies to any form of capacity. The affected here want to keep what they have attained. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if they can not read or function, as long as they can not spied on while it happens!".

3.4: Usage Worsened

Even without financial or other limits the problem hits all who from upgrades needed for updates recieve a worsening for their usage. Or if none are available, from replacement with new get such. As with all Windows users, who did not go from Seven to 8 or 10, because they prefer the old styling and/or behaviour, or even consider Seven to be far better. When the support for Seven (7) ends, as already happened for XP (5) and Vista (6), browser and mailer updates (with apart from bugfixes also deliver newer cryptoalgorithms) will not appear anymore. It is just a question of time until HTTPS web sites (and also TLS to outgoing mail servers and POP3S/IMAP4S to mailbox servers) start not to function any more under Seven. Then welcome to the enforced upgrade to 10, no matter how much one dislikes it. Or welcome to the enforced migration to Linux. Same all who want to keep an old phone with a real keyboard, because they write faster on it. Or those who on existing computers have old programs, which they want to continue using, but which do not run any more on newer systems, because these have been extended in incompatible ways. These want to keep what fits better to them. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if they have to use worse software, or can not type any more, or lose existing functionality, as long as they can not spied on while it happens!".

(This is for me a further important point: Because of above phone from 2012, with real keyboard and not just touch screen.)

3.5: Retro Computers Preferred

This also includes all who prefer retro computers, or even just retro software on newer computers. Not everybody regards the newest and most modern as the best. Real progress does not consist of always using the newest, no matter what it is. Only adding new, which gives users more choice, from which everyone can pick what fits them best, new or old, is true progress.

Be this because old software user interfaces fit better to some people. Either because they leave more screen space for seeing data. Or simply distract less with interface widgets. Or because some people like their simpler structure. This with less featuritis or even miss-features, and without the power requirement needed for them.

Be this because they don't want software with virus endangered data formats which contain scripts. Prefer to use safe and stable base functionality, instead of marketing effective but deceptive decadence. Or after having known old robust reliable software, do not want to use modern brittle bugware that is full of holes.

Be this because they don't want to have the autoupdates, which are necessary because of the many bugs in modern software. That because they for reliability on productive systems only employ software, which has gone through test operations on their site. (Simply overwriting world wide many computers, from a central point is a security catastrophe which is just waiting to happen, whether because of an accident or sabotage.) Or because they simply don't want to have the large update downloads, which can occur anytime unquestioned, because of bandwidth and the cost of it, or even lock out when monthly allocation is exceeded, followed by loss of Internet access until the next month. Or simply the blockage of the system, which can happen when updates are being installed, they can also strike in middle of an important operation, such as a job critical presentation, even when explicitly stopped with "not now". Or when, after at long last finding all update off switches, software complains at every start about missing updates.

Because of such not everyone has an "always the newest" attitude. Some want to explicitly use better fitting older. Forbidding such would be analogue to the department of vehicles forbidding all old-timer cars or the building planning office all old houses, perhaps because danger for accidents or impact on the environment. Forcing all people to use new vehicles or new buildings, would rob all users of the character of their preferred old property. Even more analogue to the situation here would be, if the roads department were underrun by electric car extremists, would gradually dismantle all access to petrol stations, to force people to switch to electric, a move that would make all old-timers unusable. Doing such, without public discussion or agreement from this or law demanding its, would result in massive protests because of despotism of the officials. Similar wanting to use old is now an increasing trend in retro computer and retro software users. Forbidding it is the same despotism of admins. The affected here want to use what fits in style to them. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if they can not use fitting any more, as long as they can not spied on while it happens!".

(This is for me the most important point: I prefer retro software for its robust simple design, by a large margin. This is also why this site comes deliberately with a retro web styling and logo.)

3.6: Using Learning Computers

This also includes all who use neo-retro learning computers. These are new developments, based on retro computer principles, which allow to experience and understand the inside of computers, because they are simple and thus structured comprehensibly. (Original retro computers are also so used, but are, because not manufactured any more, limited in number and accessible to collectors, they are not available to random students or other types of learners.) Such devices can also run with Ethernet adaptors (or RS232 to SLIP/PPP router) on the net. Internet TCP/IP and web HTTP and HTML (and mail SMTP and POP3) are easy enough to implement on these (even on 8bit computers, within the limits of their small memories). Only like this can one really understand how computers and the Internet work. Such understanging can slow down todays trend, that goes towards ever less comprehensible bloated systems, and from only knowing such ever more ignorant developers, which because of this produce ever worse systems. While doing this is already secured for the actual computers, it only applies to the Internet if this continues to cooperate, and only so proves that these simple computers are complete. Some want to learn how everything works. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if they can not learn any more, as long as they can not spied on while it happens!".

3.7: Consideration for Environment

This also affexts all who first want to use up old stuff, from environment concerns. Today saving electricity and reducing CO2 may be the fashionable issues in environment protection. Some people continue to regard reducing waste als important. This applies particularly to electronics waste containing heavy poisons. Consumption of raw materials is also problematic, because some of them are running out. In particular since the highly questionable replacement of lead-based solder by silver-based, with one of the fastest depleting and most difficult to replace raw materials being used even more. Not everyone wants to throw away and replace computer and tablet and phone every few years. Not everyone believes in turnover and profit maximising "every 3 to 6 years new" thinking, with average at 5 years. Some know that even 10+ year old devices can work very well, even if the worse aging behaviour of silver-based solder is reducing this.

Even if someone does not care what they use, anything new is for them acceptable, even without any financial or technical reasons, some regard the environment as important. They want to fully use their devices until the end of their lifetime. Some even want to specifically pick up what others have discarded and use that up, because such continued use ist the most effective recycling, and so also the best. This, should the need arise, by combining of multiple broken devices into one functioning specimen, or even scavenging very broken ones to obtain replacement parts for repairing others. Which all results in using older stuff. These want to conserve the environment instead of straining it more. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if the environment is destroyed faster, as long as this can not be spied on!".

(This is for me a further important point: I consciously use what others have discarded. That is also why this site comes deliberately in simple HTML which is also readable with all old stuff.)

3.8: Boycott of China

Add also all those, who do not want to buy a new device, because such are today usually made in China, and desire for boycotting the system there. Anyone who notices, that Stalinism was actually Fashism minus Capitalism plus Communism, then Maoism was Stalinism minus Socialism plus Confucianism, and todays China is Maoism plus Capitalism added back in, so only differs from Fashism by having Confucianism instead of Nationalism, does not want to thoughtlessly finance such a regime.

Especially since todays "cheap is best or even everything" thinking has destroyed most alternatives, some people prefer to refuse buying and continue to use existing. Or even pick up and use what others have discarded. Add to that for some above the environmental advantage with electronics waste and raw materials. Even those who buy new, may because of environmental impact not want to transport it around half the world. Or they simply want to support the local economy, instead of imports. Both of these allthough it is more expensive, with saving up money instead of spending it on unnecessary replacement. These want to either from boycott or saving reasons reduce unnecessary buying where possible. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if the Chinese workers get supressed and exploited, or the rest of the world is bought up with Chinese profits from this and one day will be subjected, or the local economy collapses, as long as this can not be spied on!".

3.9: Webarchivers Data Access

Not only people with old computers get hit. Even someone who has a new one can be hit, depending on what they do with them! After all there exist those who automatically record their visited websites, to preserve this part of culture. We today have an information society, but this will not be comprehensible in few decades, because lots of data is usually thrown away after use, one can "always fetch it again". But this only goes until the provider deletes it, no matter whether this is because of lost of interest, or lack of profit, or by not existing any more. Even archived stuff becomes, far too often, unreadable because of media degenerated, or just thrown away later from lack of space. Or, despite existing, the searching party does not find a copy, that would be available at someone else. The entire downloadable content (DLC) approach of the web threatens to become an informational black hole, in future just as blank as the dark age of the first half of the middle ages became.

Not everybody has such a throw away attitude towards data, no matter if already exisiting or still comming. These know that only as many as possible distributed collected and stored copies can halfway secure continued existence and availability, and so at least alleviate this problem. Explicitly creating such copies, by downloading entire web sites, puts a massive load on these, and is highly disliked by their operators, up to them locking out people who do this. Creating such copies piecemeal, of only what one fetches, is thus a better method, but a lot of work. This can though be simplified by using automatic archiving. Enforced HTTPS though sabotages this though, because browser external web cache programs, which can be used for this, are dependent on protocolling the web traffic as HTTP proxy. Which the cryptography in HTTPS prevents as "spying". These people want to keep their past and continue to record the coming future. They do not at all like the arising dictatorship of "No matter if all of culture goes lost, as long as this can not be spied on!".

(This is for me a further important point: I use a web archive since decades. That is also why this site comes deliberately in simple archivable and surely staying readable HTML 3.0, and without any JavaScript, or even dynamic pages.)

4: How many are affected by this situation?

The amount of those affected is far more than one would expect. On a geek mail list reaching about 100 persons there was already a further one, so 2% of them. This despite that geeks rather frequently upgrade or replace their systems! In a sport group of only 10 persons was another, he had to replace his tablet. So there are likely an even higher percent. If one sees that end of 2018 despite enforced HTTPS there is still about 10% HTTP web traffic, even even higher percent can be expected. It one sees that even in HTTPS web traffic, middle of 2018 still 6% of browsers still had no TLS1.2, even more can be expected. My current estimate is, that those affected by this most likely range from 3 to 10% of all web users. (Which is why the remaining 90 to 97% do not notices anything, it all stays so well hidden.)

Many notice even less, that the sum of all affected adds up to a large problem, so don't defend themselves. Above 3 to 10% (middle 6%) are with some 300 to 1000 million Internet users (middle 600) after all 0.06*600=36 million, so with same scatter about 15 to 50 million affected are to be expected! (Even with only 1 to 3% (middle 2%) this would still be 0.02*600=12 million, with scatter 6 to 18 million.)

Worse, this is even the case after 20 years of using HTTPS. That because of the rapid decay of cryptography, with observed algorithm life cycle of only about 5 to 10 years, but with even 10+ year old devices remaining in use. It will, because of this contradiction, likely remain constant at above 3 to 10%!

The problem also gets underestimated because of very misleading non expressive error messages. Such as "Network error" or "Protocol error" or "Connection failed", which contain no reference to cryptography as cause. Or possible case "No secure connection could be established", or best case "No common algorithm", which at least point to cryptography, but do not say that this arises only because of decaying algorithms. All this often only with an "OK" button available, despite this not at all being OK, when neither "Use unsecure connection" nor a more neutral "Abort" are offered. This followed by not getting any page. (If a page does come, which because of too new data formats gets rendered wrong, or with error messages, this is not a case of the HTTPS problem, just that the too new data format is not being understood.)

Such happening often enough results in an "oh doesn't work anymore, computer/tablet/phone seems to be too old and used up" attitude. Followed by discarding it, because an "one can not do anything else" situation exists. The result, depending upon circumstances, is replacing or going without, but definitely a loss. Bonus points, when some people through this lose access to web sites with data which is important to them, or even to editing their own web site. Then they had to upgrade or even replace, to prevent this happening, no matter what this cost in sacrificing other wanted, or even could not upgrade or replace and so lost-out permanently.

Only a few affected recognize, that they have become victims of a deliberate lock-out, and of an underhanded expropriation from behind. Here we can expect large dismay and protests, as soon as all this becomes known, as people notice that their losses were not technically unavoidable, but only were politically motivated inflicted on them.

Looking at the usually irrelevant "great danger", such out-casting of so many millions from the web is totally inappropriate. Everyone should be allowed to freely decide on their situation, as it fits best for them. Everyone should be allowed to have their own estimate of the dangers, and of all other reasons applying to HTTPS. No matter if keeping devices, or keeping to financial limits, or using equipement, or keeping features, or using fitting software, or being able to learn, or conserve environment, or decide on buying, or archive web.

This followed by being able to live out their own decision what is to be prioritized, including being allowed to have a "this danger is irrelevant to me" attitude. With then using what is fitting for them. Nobody may force their views on others, because that is making up others minds. Nobody may lock out others, just because they consider an important to them "great danger" to be neglible. Because of that this campaign has been made, to make these deeds commited in hiding known, get people up against enforced cryptography.

5: Who is causing this situation?

After recognizing above situation, with all its consequences, one asks soon who the enforced HTTPS web admins actually are, and more important what is driving them.

5.1: Fear of the state

When one criticises such web admins, as I have repeatedly done since begin of 2017, one quickly gets from many of them statements, according to which they consider HTTP to be a "great danger", because it is open. They know that the state records web sites surfed, which is already known to attentive insiders since decades, but to many others only since Snowden in 2013. This gets done to try to extract conclusions from surf patterns, to find terrorists. This to if possible discover suspicious persons before an criminal act, or in reality usually only after an act to investigate the perpetrators.

But such admins have developed a mistaken belief, that the state with this wants to underrun and attack the entire population, have developed panical fear of this. But this "great danger" is in reality for 99% of normal people vanishingly small. The state only has limited resources of finance and staff, and also aims these mainly at persecuting crimes. They from recording only get thousands of millions of surfed URLs, which results in a massive pile of data. They filter thus the records for patterns, which could suggest a crime, because reading all of them is simply impossible.

Or rather they mostly fail at this, at finding crimes before they happen, only after an act has happend search for traces of it in the data, with before only collecting them for later use. See any not prevented attack, but with only hours after the perpetrators identified, which no investigator could ever do. So this act and perpetrator was already present as traces in the data, but was not filtered out. Only with knowing about it they became recognizable.

Except by massively sticking out no one needs to expect negative consequences from this. Normal people who surf normal sites have no need to hide anything from this, because they get filtered out anyway, in the states own interest of not getting flooded! Where commiting a crime sticks out the most, but that will lead to consequences anyway. Normal people do not get into this situation anyway, so are not in danger, except for criminal minorities.

Because of this surveilance is wanted by many, because they feel safer with it, no matter if cameras recording or net filtering. Because this laws and budgets for such get enacted, because these are successfull with the majority of the population. That despite the officials already since a long time are drowning in data, since years do not want to have any more. But politicians enact ever more such laws, exactly because they sell well in the fight for votes.

But such web admins regard themselves (and all other people!) as massively endangered by this. So they want to exterminate HTTP as "great danger", because they consider HTTPS the only salvation from this, because it is closed. By which they are actually implicating, that they (and all others!) are surfing extremely questionable sites, which when filtering for suspicious persons would be discovered, thus want to hide these. Only an in the meantime large section of admins behaving so disproves this straight conclusion as statistically unrealistic. So this is more likely a case, of widely spread loss of reality. This from them talking each other into believing their fears, by now over years, ever more stiring up each other, until todays derailment.

Compare this effect with the once widely spread massive fear of air plane crashes. These were really less dangerous than the travel by car to the airport. One only needs to compare the thousands of air crash deaths per year with the millions of road accident deaths per year, to see the difference, which even with less people flying still made it less dangerous. But spectacular reporting of crashes resulted in an actually small danger getting massively overvalued, due to not dividing down the resulting overinformation (all air crashes reported but only a vanishingly small part of road accidents) to a realistic level of threat. It took decades until at long last a more realistic view gained acceptance. The same repeated itsself since then with terror. Also only thousands of deaths per year, but with just as much spectacle. Here also after large panic only decades brought a more realistic view.

The same applies now with surveilance supposedly being a "great danger". Despite not even any deaths happening, no spectacle from such! Here as far as observed instead of external reports an internal group dynamic is in effect. This coming from an extremist section of the american civil rights movement. This movement regards itself by principle as potentially persecuted by the state, wants to prepare for if or when that turns into a dictatorship. In the extremist section this expands into believing, that the state already today is persecuting all, thus wanting to defend and fight against it. This section is even inside the movement known as "lunatic fringe" (which clearly names them for what they are).

The more some web admins got infiltrated by such thinking, the more they have talked at each other and stired up fear in each other, have from this ever more looked out for signs of a danger, so stired themselves even further up. Also they have infected others, so that ever more tipped over, also infected further ones. Which leads to here even two feedback loops effecive, driving depth and width, deepening and spreading this fear virally as a meme. Thus creating a subculture of fear. Result is a massively distorted view of a micro danger, followed by complete loss of reality, up to developing paranoid insanity.

This is the insight from multiple years of discussion with some of them, and observing how they argue among themselves. Including hearing their repeated claims that, they are not insane, just "paranoid to the proper amount". Which they claim is something good, regard it about at the level of "being cautious". Please ignore, that paranoia is simply a short term for paranoid insanity. And also that their "proper amount" is totally offbeat.

5.2: Overreaction

Such web admins are now acting totally overblown, out of this fear of this "great danger". This is perhaps comparable to an immune system overreacting in a very clean environment, which leads to allergies. Just here comparable, a fear overreaction in a very safe environment, which leads to psychosis. From this they treat this "great danger" as a catastrophical threat, which has got to be prevented, no matter what the consequences are. They therefore want cryptography, to be safe (or in reality to get fears under control).

If this only pertained to their own surf traffic, it would not be a problem. Even if they operated their personal sites with enforced HTTPS this would only be a small problem, with only their sort of people as readers. Everyone shall live with what makes them lucky, everyone arrange their life as they want to. Even if this is slinking away and hiding themself from empty fear. Here the old addage of "live and let live" applies.

But in the meantime they enforce and propagate enforced HTTPS also on sites, which are used by random other people, who are not part of their circle. This becomes a problem, because those others get locked out, if they do not have HTTPS, or even just too older, for whatever reason. That gives a case of a security measure which creates way more collateral damage that in prevents, because it creates a total loss, despite only preventing a disappearingly small danger.

Which is contraproductive, like so many security measures in the newer times. Because too often only the advantage aimed for gets seen, but the costs of side effects get ignored or at least undervalued. That perhaps because measures which are missing or fail to work hit the responsible with accusations, but collateral damage "only" hits others and so simply can be passed off as "neccessary". Which all is not a new insight. Which is why people who deploy such measures should advance carefully, or at least look out observantly. Which was completely failed here, not recognizing that some people do not want this "security", prefer to continue to use HTTP. For which it has to stay open. Everyone should be able to live with what makes them lucky, some hidden, some open. Here also applies "live and let live", on both sides. But this is not allowed any more by enforced HTTPS using web admins, their "important" measure is forced onto all.

Such web admins could have initially acted out of protecting people, but with ignorance of the consequences. Though such consequences could had beed prevented with sufficient caution. But panical fear prevents higher thinking and thus empathy, and also respect for others and caution coming from such. Which is also know as "fear eats the soul". This also gets seen in any case of discrimination, where fear of a specific group of people leads to behaviour which harms other "similar" but uninvolved, and also prevents recognizing this error.

But such lack of knowing ended as explanation the latest when they were criticized by the victims, so the damage became known to them. They should have reacted to that by recognizing the problem and again opening up. Latest after repeatedly being pointed out, so that being surprised by something new is not limiting their insight. Because this was not done their "protecting people" reason becomes an lame excuse, and not usable any more. Because "protection" which harms more than it protects is no such. Here also "live and let live" applies, on both sides.

But such web admins instead carried on. From their mistaken belief that this is a "great danger", with the claim that such "justifies" their enforcement. Even after they knew, that they with it are banishing people from the web. Even after it was explained what is happening, and why that is unavoidingly so. Even after they were confronted, that this "great danger" is in reality a meaningless micro danger. They reacted to criticism of their behaviour and damage with total rejection.

5.3: Know-alls

From their arguments it quickly became visible, that they "know all". After all they as insiders and professionals have evaluated all which they see, from that found the only true solution. Therefore all other "must" be "wrong". This despite them being a relatively homogenuous specific professional group, and as such largely ignorant of all other 7 billion peoples far more diverse life situations, for which other priorities could be better. Especially as they from know all also drop any observancy, so do not get to gain more knowledge. Such admins still believe, that they know all better then the entire rest of the world, because they after all are insiders and professionals. In reality they don't even know how little they know.

(Which is why democracy as its most important elements, appart from freedom of opinion and freedom of speach, also contains representation for all. Exactly to prevent such, by creating an state in which all can both know of a life fitting for them, as also can strive for such. And that is the case since centuries, because these are not new insights.)

Same they believe from recognizing the "danger" to have achieved total truth, so know all even better. Therefore their "correct" view must all the more be pushed through, specially against other "unresonables", who "endanger" themselves by using HTTP. That because those "unresonables" are also "obviously" insane, and so are to have their minds made up by the all-knowing. In reality all typical behaviour which fits paranoid insanity. From which they from insanity plus know-all in reality have become fanatics.

Contributing to this is, that many admins have decades of hearing and passing around "dumbest user at hotline" stories behind them. Where some do not recognize these as the 5% bottom if users, but regard them as representative, from this ignoring the middle 90% and top 5%. And from that regarding themselves as "better" than the entire "stupid users". Such views are not at all seldom. In particular because users in reality usually only have less technical special knowledge, which in effect can be confused with being stupid. From believing in "stupid users" are normal case, to getting to "stupid people" as root of this "stupidity", and then as "better ones" making the peoples minds up for them, is just a small step to leaving the straight and narrow path.

Some even use the damage as threat instead of for insight, to push through their "go and upgrade" demands. This with one extremist even went as far as extortion, where he knowingly denied an affected any access to information on his communication service, where his group of colleagues newly meet. Even if this means, him losing contact with his colleagues (and them also losing contact with him)!

So this is not a case any more of ignorance, but is getting continued concious of its consequences. So it is a pure act of inconsiderance, coming from their ideological blindness. They believe in having to forcibly bring luck to all with cryptography. No matter if this brings them luck, or if they go under from the resulting exclusion! All this without any legitimation, or just public discussion about it, or even any agreement from this. This just gets dictated self willed and high handed by them, no mind of others views. The behaviour of fanatics, who become dictators.

With this they have become enemies of a free society. With which they become similar to comparable types of officials, just (mostly) payed privately not publically, but appart from that same type of persons, same behaviour. Or even worse than most of todays officials, because of less public influence from outside on them. Why they are more comparable with royal officials af 100 to 300 years ago. Both based on the mistaken belief, that they as insiders know everything better than the entire rest of the world, so may dictate it to them, despite being ignorant. In reality is is pure snobbishness of these "better" ones, who both actually know far less than all other people added up, but have a power position and exploit it.

5.4: Counterreaction

All this with not just single web sites affected by enforced HTTPS, but in the meantime an over 90% majority of them! In 2015 it was just the frustration of not being able to access Wikipedia. In 2016 it was just slightly more. But from 2017 it became ever more web sites, both previously used ones which more and more went lost, as also ever more share of search engine results which were unusable, more frustration. In 2018 it then became dominant, over half of all sites do not work any more, with ever more frustration from this. Until in 2019 over 90%, with massive frustration from this.

Also in 2017 and 2018 were such reactions to my questions and criticisms, the case at over 90% of addressed admins! Only less than 10% reacted with insigt and allowing HTTP again. This large section of admins behaving so also disproves the straight conclusion as statistically unrealistic, that all are suffering from paranoia, which for this would have had to spread itsself epidemically. A certain section may have only thoughtlessly followed a "This is how one does it today" teaching, propagated by above and spread uncritically by some professional authorities. (Note, that due to large growth of computing, the majority of professional have only a few years of job experience, regard anyone with only slightly more as authority. And even the professional press has since decades consistently far more interest in showing what is newly available, than in criticising mistakes. Which all favours such spreading.)

So above 90% could be a statistical deviation. My current estimate assumes surely above 10% but below 90% of insane, with the rest thoughtless, and not determinable which type are below or above 50%. (In particular as the large majority of the addressed are either members or at least environ of a group named CCC, which seems to be the largest distribution vector of the panic in the german speaking space.)

But no matter which type dominates, the loss of over 90% of web sites is clear. As consequence of the damage adding up from ever more of them, we victims are now defending against this false behaviour. We demand from web admins, that they shall accept their responsibility fitting for a power position. As part of that they shall respect others freedom, allow those to decide what they want and need. That includes also accepting, that others may have their own views, and also arer allowed to live them out. Even if they themselves do not share these. Here also "live and let live" is to be followed.

For which they should continue (or rather recommence) offering HTTP, so that the web stays usable (or rather becomes again) for all. This should actually be natural in a free society. Everyone may do what they want, so long they do not hinder others in doing what they want. But the majority of addressed web admins have become fanatics, fail at accepting this. Thus it is acceptable to them, to force their views on others from a technical power position, and to propagate such behaviour to others. Thus they reject any criticism, because they "know all". This also prevented through them reaching at least the thoughtless with criticism. So this problem can now only be solved with external public pressure. Because of that there now exists this campaign, to show up the deeds commited in hiding, to be able to build up pressure, to get these corrected.

5.5: Mailadmins

Above is the situation with enforced HTTPS on the web. Now the same is starting to hit mail, with enforced TLS. That this could degenerate just the same, does not require speculation. There already exists a historic case. From 2000 zu 2005 an antispam filter method called DUL spread among mail admins, up to also over 90% of all mail servers being affected by it, and also over 90% of all addressed admins rejecting any criticism.

DUL is based on the observation, that most legitimate mails are sent indirectly through an outgoing mail server with static IP address (because Microsofts widely spread mailers are not capable of sending directly), but many spams are sent directly from PCs with their dynamic IP addresses (because lots of spamware avoids using the outgoing mail servers). But this is only a statistical correlation, not a causal relationship!

But in the DUL filter "dynamic IP address = spam" is strictly assumed, with from this considering and rejecting all directly sent mails as spam. This often used, without even transfering their content and testing it for real spaminess, with so DUL as only test criterium, despite it being broken by design! So legitimate mails not only perhaps go lost by content, but with directly sent mails systematical loss is guaranteed. With this communication is not just disturbed but completely prevented, hitting both sender and also reciever.

(Such losses are known as "false positives". They appear with all techniques, which instead of on mail content are based on network side effects such as IP addresses or host names, which are known as "meta data". They are absolutely to be avoided, at least if one respects ones users communication. Unfortunately every profession has a worst group. Among admins these are the mail admins. Best case so incompetent, that they don't even recognize, that they are creating false positives, worst case they simply don't care. This also insight from multiple years of discussions with some of them. And that consistently for 15(!) years, 2000 to 2015, until the enforced HTTPS web admins disputed their bottom position.)

This causes all who send their mails direct, without detour through an outgoing mail server, annoying work to circumvent it. Some want to use direct, because it is the better method, because it saves a lot of expenditure and problems. The entire outgoing servers, and failure of such, and abuse of such, and SMTP auth accounts with passwords to prevent this, and TLS to secure those. (Which all only became neccessary because of Microsofts defective mailers, whose lack of direct sending had to be patched up with this massive technological and administrative expenditure.)

Bonus points, that DUL is a variation of the DNSBL technique. This listed in the original MAPS version only static IP addresses of mail servers of known spammers, to block mails from these. This was then extended with ORBS to open relays abused by spammers. Those were missconfigured mail servers which anyone could use as outgoing, without any authentication, which also allowed spammers their abuse. Aim of ORBS was to put their admins under pressure, to configure properly, with removing them after from the list. This was though then with DUL extended to random dynamic addresses, and so all direct sending users, no matter if correctly configured, and without any removal from list. Strictly a case of "similar = guilty" thinking, and so a form of discrimination, with the address/addresstype of the sender as only criterium. So comparably affecting them as using living address as substitute for race/religion/lifestyle! DUL was already in 1997 by DNSBL inventor MAPS condemned because of the systematic losses and advised against. Despite this many mail admins only 2000 to 2005 introduced it, until over 90% of all mail servers were affected. Followed by over 90% rejecting criticism. One notices parallels here.

(One notice here: This problem can only occur in spam filters, which run on mail servers. All filters running on your own PC, in a mail reader or antivirus package, can never have DUL, or any form of DNSBL, or anything based on IP addresses, and also no enforced TLS. These are based soley on the mail content, word combinations which suggest spammish intent. And they use the existing available computer/tablet/phone processors, instead of loading up expensive server processors. Why these are anyway the better method, unless network from server to computer/tablet/phone is very slow or expensive. But that stops only few mail admins from considering their filters as "better" as the PC admins ones, despite them often using DUL nonsense to save processor. Even more parallels.)

But all this was "only" collateral damage from a by design defective method, which was used from cost cutting plus indifference, or simply incompetence. It was not the result of an desire to enforce "only through outgoing". So circumventing this was possible. Also DUL has died largely in 2015, at least in the worst "reject without testing content" form, from over 90% to under 10% of all mail servers. With Gmail as first of the large ones who already gave up rejecting in 2013, and GMX as last of the large still using it rejecting in 2019. Which results in "only" risk from this of missclassification and landing in spam folder, instead of rejection and manual work of circumventing.

(Though in 2019 an increase in use of "reject without testing content" is again being observed, at least when I send from my phone, but not when from home. This includes also Gmail using it there again. Which could point to simply using an DUL list without my current home provider in it. On the other hand Gmail also classifies mails from home as spam, as soon as a link or even just server name is in one! Which either needs an unlikely general "no mails with links" policy, or a link+DUL=spam formula, for which my home provider would have to be in their DUL list. But rated as lesser, and placed in spam folder, contrary to my phone provider, where also without links is totally rejected. Which suggests two separate DUL lists and filters.)

Enforced TLS makes this far worse. It also kills all mails without transfering content or looking at it. And it prevents any form of circumvention because of cryptography. Which even the admin from whom I in 2018 first time heard about it indirectly admitted. After he had heard of techniques to circumvent DUL, he commented, that these are not possible because of TLS! He claimed then, that enforced TLS is today the case everywhere, despite me as direct sending user having up to that time neither heard of it, nor seen it (and since have seen it once in 2019). With which he demonstrated how far his perception deviates from reality.

This especially hits people who, because of wanting to avoid cryptography and updates for it, don't use outgoing servers, to avoid their SMTP auth accounts with passwords and the TLS needed because of them. These want to send directly, but enforced TLS hits them just as damaging as enforced HTTPS. Which is why here TLS-less mail should continue to be offered.

6: How realistic are the claimed dangers?

Such web admins give as motive and justification various claims of "great danger". But how realistic are these actually? How much danger threatens really? It is a real great danger, and their measures appropriate? Or is it just totally overblown mistaken estimation, and their measures inappropriate?

6.1: Fear of spies

They fear, that spying is a danger, from tapping routers and recording web traffic passing through them. It is proven, that this can be done, and also gets done. But this poses questions: What are the threat scenarios from this? And how often are these to be expected? And most importantly, if and when are they even relevant for most users?

On one hand it is done systematically by the state, to record and analyse connections. But this only creates a massive pile of data to filter from. This for most people is not relevant, because they are not targets of it, so explicitely get filtered out. (Additionally the state can selectively record specific persons, and can also filter these in more detail, as far less data accumulates by this. But that only applies to conspicious minorities, so is also irrelevant for the majority.)

On the other hand is is done by private persons. Usually by cyber criminals to get at credit card numbers, and saboteurs to get at account passwords. Such is regarded by real information security people as the far more meaningfull problem. But with above web admins it practically does not appear next to their fear of the state! This can actually hit random people, but is not relevant for most normal web sites. So it only becomes relevant at special sites, where one uses credit cards in web shops, or edits web sites with account and password. And the later is by information security people considered the more significant problem, because of with it spreading false data in the name of someone else who is trusted. (Additionally there are unscrupulous competition doing industrial espionage, if one communicates over the web. Or also when transmitting mails. But this also only applies to specific minorities, so is just as irrelevant for the majority.)

Therefore this is simply irrelevant for way over 90% of all people in over 90% of their web traffic. There exists therefore no reason, why everyone should only go onto the net with the equivalent of an armoured vehicle. And even more no justification, to force such onto all people for their "protection". (Far greater danger comes anyway from server intrusions. And even more danger from tricking out users with techniques of "social engineering". Against which crypto can not work at all.)

Some still feel threatend by this, even with random web traffic, want to use cryptography for everything. Despite that this only hides the actual requests, who fetches which specific URL (and possibly any credit card numbers or passwords send with them). It does not hide the content of the site itself, which is still open to fetch (except from private sites with access only with account). It also does not hide, who fetches something from which server, or how much they fetch, only exactly what gets fetched. And it is partially possible to draw conclusions, from how much to what, which is known as "traffic analysis". So this is usually neither a real danger, nor a real protection!

Despite all that the cryptos treat this as a panacea, and reject any criticism. Most likely because getting a grip on their fears demands this, and entering on arguments endangers that, from which they get even more fear. From this such web admins think, they "have to" force crypto on all people for all web traffic, against the "great danger".

6.2: Refusing being "auxillary"

One web admin went as far as a statement, that he "does not want to be an auxillary" to people "endangering" themselves. Note, that this "endangering" was in the context of read-only access to an event calendar, which is open to all people. It reality he has actively closed open access, only allowing HTTPS. So leaving it open would not have been an action on his part, and so could not be an auxillary.

Compare this argument, as if hypothetical securities because of the "great danger" of security cameras would demand, that everyone has to walk around with face hidden by mask or veil. Followed by locking the doors to businesses where they are employed, and only letting in those who are hidden, to enforce this. With thus forbidding all subcultures and professions their desired of even required clothing. This would give massive protests. Even more so when after a while over 90% of all businesses were affected! This followed by them rejecting these protests, with above excuse of "not being an auxillary" to people "endangering" themselves with non being hidden. This would lead to far more protests. Most likely followed by managers handing out the notice to these securities, given that they did all this without order or even just consent from above, self willed, thus also damaging the businesses with loss of customers. (Compare this with the actual situation, where securities more likely demand absence of hiding, so their cameras are not circumvented. And contrast that with how the enforced HTTPS web admins would react to comparable prohibitions of crypto.)

6.3: Fear of falsifying data

Some web admins also fear, that sabotage is a danger, that in routers a "data injection" gets done, thereby falsifying the web traffic going through them. Which means not being able to trust the fetched data any more. That is claimed by some of them as "the actually larger danger"). But this is far more involved, because for this all traffic has to be redirected through and modified by a server of the attacker, instead of only grabbing a copy of it. And all that just to falsify data, to with this sabotage users.

Also there exist no state measures which do this. Except one is a politically or militarically relevan site, and thus target of cyber warfare attacks (and those are more likely server intrusions).

Appart from this only private actions of this type are to be expected. But for such the large expenditure can justify its costs only for very few sites. Their users are so also only a minority, who anyway need to know the special circumstances of such sites and there data. So also all of this is completely irrelevant for the normal web surfers. So this "actually larger danger" is for normal people even less important than spying, just more paranoid insanity.

6.4: Fear of stealing passwords

As special case of above some think they need to act against the danger of falsifying "Edit" links. Aim of such attacks would be with "DNS hijacking" (a small form of "data injection") to redirect users to a false server, to there with a pretended original site get at users passwords and so their accounts. Which is known as "man-in-the-middle attack" (MitM). Against which cryptography can show up the false server by comparing signatures. (Same type of crypto can reversed also be used for authentication, instead of passwords, and so make crypto for encryption of the later superfluous.)

But from this the perpetrators practically only get single user-IDs, for sabotaging these users and their readers. So this is also only a very small danger, because the expenditure for it is seldom justified. Once again only single exposed users of special sites are endangered by such sabotage. Thus all users should be allowed to judge their endangerment, and compare it with the costs of protection. Expecially if the later costs them all access. Or even costs random surfers also just reading. (Also here "social engineering" is a greater danger, because it is far easier, only eliciting passwords with fabricated mails with camouflaged links to the server of the attacker, which is known as "phishing". Against which crypto also can not work at all.)

Further this can anyway be secured by the site design, with simply offering "Edit" links selectively. Either only those who read with HTTPS get to see an "Edit" link, or better with HTTP only a deactivated one. Add to this a "Secure" link which leads to the HTTPS version. (And in this one possibly at the same spot a "Nonsecure" Link back to HTTP.) Only reading the site can thus always stay open with HTTP. Even accountless adding of comments can be done by HTTP.

Comparable can even be used in Webshops with credit cards, Link to order form only active if HTTPS is used. With the rest of the site only as catalogue also staying readable by HTTP. Or even allow orders with payment by bill, only decativate credit card link.

(This even more so, when one thinks about how credit cards are a fundamentally unsafe design. Technically they amount to fitting ones bank account with a number lock, and writing down its number on the card (which when writing down passwords is regarded as a security violation), and telling it to everyone one is paying (which with telling passwords is even regarded as grave security violation!). With this there is always danger of abuse on part of the site operator or their staff. And if permanently stored there, also danger of intrusions into the web shop server. HTTPS actually only secures this already questionable process against evesdroppers while transmission.)

(Better would be to therefore to replace credit cards, with delivery with bill, same as it already works flawlessly since over 100 years, with mail order firms with catalogue plus telephone. Or at least with reserving goods and delivery after payment by bank transfer. For which a special E-Banking device with WLAN is sufficiant, issued from ones bank (and updated at their cost!), and independant of computer/tablet/phone. Into which one inserts ones customer card and uses with PIN, same as at an ATM or credit card terminal. Or one simply goes without such a device to ones banks ATM, which has been extended for this. Both way safer than anything involving credit cards.)

Such a "Secure" Link can also be combined with setting an HSTS entry, which tells the browser, that a site once visited with HTTPS shall always be visited with this. Even is it gets an HTTP URL to the site and there is no HTTPS Redirect. Because with HSTS a fitting browser itself makes an internal redirect. (With an "Nonsecure" Link the HSTS entry has to be first cleared, before going back to HTTP.) With this clicking on the "Secure" link in the HTTP version is only once. And so remains an identical danger as with an initial Redirect. After it is also comfortable, direct to HTTPS without clicking "Secure". After which it is still possible to place HTTP links, so that HTTP users don't keep on landing on HTTPS, which does not work for them, and repeatedly have to delete the "s". Search engines can even be redirected to HTTP, so that they always offer HTTP links.

The web admin with above "Edit" link falsifying argument exited the discussion, after I had described this, without commenting on it. Most likely because he noticed, that this would work well, but did not want to accept and admit the consequences of it. This is typical behaviour of such fanatics: As soon as they notice, that they can not justify themselves, after a sensible compromise has been shown, which would require accepting others, they just run away instead of admitting their errors. Most likely because they are trying, to push a politically motivated "all with crypto" aim with pseudotechnical arguments, and collapse as soon as these fail at real technical criteria.

6.5: Abuse for smoke screen

Argument of a further one was, that if only endangered use cryptography this stands out, and thus danger for them exists. So this "justifies" getting all others to use crypto, so they can hide themselves behind the resulting smoke screen. For this the expenditure or even damage for others who gain nothing from this smoke screen didn't matter to him. They shall simply sacrifice themselves, because he and others like him need it for their "protection" (or in reality to reduce their fears). But dumping the costs for ones own profit onto others without their consent is antisocial behaviour.

Add to this that most people with Email have rejected such "all have to use crypto" by not doing it. On one hand because they simply did not want the expenditure. That would most likely also be the case on the web, if it required expenditure, but the Redirect simply does it automatically. On the other hand because they simply have no interest in it, for something so unimportant to them. Which would most likely also be the case on the web.

Open remains whether some even without any expenditure would reject using crypto, because they explicitely do not want to create such a smoke screen, neither in email nor on the web! That in particular those who regard surveilance as good, why they would conciously decide against creating a smoke screen. The political success of surveilance measures points more likely in direction of wanting these and rejecting smoke screen. Where the were public ballots on such laws, the statement went in this direction. But this gets circumvented both by underhanded Redirect and with setting HSTS without asking. With so abusing data traffic unnoticed. All this without discussion or consent or legitimation, or rather contrary to what is known of discussion and consent. Here we can also expect large dismay and protests, as soon as all this becomes known.

6.6: Where acceptable und where not

Thus cryptography may be sensible or even neccessary for special cases. Such as in the state for diplomatic exchange and spying and military. Or in some firms for keeping secrets from competitors. Or for some people editing web sites. Or at web shops if using credit cards. But those are only minorities, or special situations, which from their specific priorities can and want to justify and afford the expenditure, of frequent updates or even upgrades or replacement. As base for all general net usage for normal people cryptography and so also enforced HTTPS is unusable and unneccesary.

Only place where enforced HTTPS is acceptable, would be were other people are really endangered. Be this admin access, where the integrity of an entire site and all users of it could get affected. Or private sites where everyone needs an account, because else internal data could leak out through compromised users.

But it becomes mostly irrelevant where random people can get an account, and only their own data is endangered. And it becomes totally unacceptable where random accountless visitors are only reading a site. (Also if possible to be avoided is, to demand an account just for normal reading. Same also only for setting preferences, given that cookies suffice for this.)

Borderline is for editing wikis. This can lead to damage of shared data. But this is simply correctable by going back to the old version, because wikis were once designed for accountless editing. Therefore even accountless editing should be possible. Possibly with moderation of such edits by people with account (there where damage happens too often), or edits only with account (there where too large consecutive damage can happen).

Furthermore it is acceptyable with credit cards, where throwing out stands against preventing expensive accidents. (But better would be here to, instead of using credit cards have sent with bill. So removing their missdesign entirely, and also not needing any HTTPS.)

(Same also applies to enforced TLS in mails: Acceptable where accounts are secured, so that outgoing mail servers do not get missused as relays, which can lead to ORBS blockages against them, and so real danger that all users of them can not send mails any more. Or private mail groups where internal address could leak out. But it is totally unaccepatable where random accountless visitors are only sending mails to known addresses on a mail server. (But better would be anyway to send direct instead of using an outgoing, without any danger of blockages, and so no needing account nor password nor TLS.))

7: How can one proceed against this situation?

So it is now clear, that enforced HTTPS hits many victims, but cryptography is actually completely unneccesary for the large majority of normal peoples general net usage. Thus enforcing it for all is unacceptable. Which now poses the question how to proceed against the enforced HTTPS web admins.

7.1: Plan A

First there was Plan A. This consisted of making the web admins aware, that they are harming others, and to ask them to stop doing this. First the locally accessible ones, and through them all who they know, and so further until all know of the problem and correct it. Then it was still open whether they are only doing this unknowingly. So some of then were informed, continuing over about 2 years, in 2017 and 2018.

But 90% of the addressed admins rejecting any criticism, continued as up to now. So they also did not help spread information about the problem. They all as part of this recieved an offer of back to "live and let live" as it once was. But rejected this. This because the questioned showed themselves to be know-alls and fanatics. Thus Plan A failed, can be regarded as dead.

Rejecting included also above web admin with the extortion to "go and upgrade" by else losing circle of colleagues. Arguments that he is repressing freedom, he rejected with a claim, the critics are also not purveyors of freedom. He rejected our demand of freedom (to be able to use HTTP), with the reasoning that we also do not respect his freedom (to allow only HTTPS, so preventing HTTP)! In this he ignores, that there exist two types of freedom: On the one hand meaningfull freedom, to live as one wants. That applies to them, hiding themselves, for this using crypto. But also to us, using old stuff, for this avoiding crypto. On the other hand dictatorial "freedom", to determine for others how they should live (no matter if deliberately prohibiting other or only knowingly as side effect preventing it), which collides with first freedom. One note here the saying of "The Freedom to move ones fist ends where someone elses nose begins". His "Freedom" would be equivalent to the state prohibiting him HTTPS and rejecting criticism of this, by presenting that as their freedom. Who rejects such a prohibition should also reject his lame excuse. A colleague has rated this admins point of view as "very off mark".

His further excuse of "It is my server, I am allowed to do there what I want" is also to be rejected. In this he ignores, that when he offers his server to the public as service for their communications, instead of only publishing there himself, he is giving them an implicit promise, to operate it so that his offer is being fullfilled. In particular he has given all publishing by him a promise, to deliver their information to all interested readers. This applies to all of the public, no matter who they are, no matter what they use. (An exception would be only, if he gave an explicite offer of only publishing to crypto users, then he would not only be allowed to deliver exclisively to these, but also obliged to do so.)

Rejecting included also above statement of not being an "auxillary" to people "endangering" themselves, no matter if harming them by it. This in an extreme case went to an other web admins explicit statement of "HTTP is dangerous, it has got to be exterminated!". He claimed also, that enforced HTTPS is standard today, therefore everyone has got to upgrade, so there is no requirement any more for offering HTTP. In this he ignored, that the criticism comes exactly from those people who do not want to or even can not upgrade.

He even insinuated, that the critics possibly have illegal intents. This despite that those repeatedly brought up multiple of above reasons, which he though rejected as "no real reasons", and then because of "none given" speculated on illegal ones! Bonus points, that usually more likely adversaries of crypto accuse users of crypto with hiding illegal doings. But even such glaringly errorneous thinking arises automatically, after they because of mental blind spot coming from their fears, have rejected all arguments as "false", treat the result as "there are none". (After the first publishing of this text a common reaction was, according to observation of a further colleage, to claim that "no arguments are to be found in it"! That says quite a lot about the blindness of these people.)

So they invent some, in this turning adversaries of enforcement into adversaries of crypto. Or they don't even manage to notice a difference, because they have so much fear, that they percieve any criticism as "attack". After all this is a known behaviour of paranoid insanity, to have a "for us or against us" mentality, which regards all who are not part of their party as adversaries. This results in incapability to distiguish, between neutrals who are only complaining about collateral damage and adversaries who are pursuing them. Including not understanding the sentance "Crypto is not neccessary" as "Others don't need Crypto", but misunderstanding as "You shall not use Crypto".

From watching this discussion a further colleague came to the conclusion, that "crypto seems to have become a holy cow, which may not be questioned". I came from reading this to the conclusion, that these web admins actually have become security fundamentalists. Just instead of religious fundamentalists going from believing in their view of god as despot, to dogmatic dictatorship of their laws. Here going from believing in their view of state as danger, to dogmatic dictatorship of their crypto. Same I came to the conclusion, that their behaviour actually is that of moral guardians. Just instead of from fear of god an anti-sex teaching, with from it demands of prudery enforced legally. Here from fear of state a must-crypto teaching, with from it demands of updates enforced technically.

Bonus points, that above extremist with the extortion tried to enforce such moral teaching per technical power position, but then condemned the use of social pressure in form of denouncing of his acts by victims defending themselves! And after I pointed out this contradiction simply left the discussion, instead of admitting his error.

From all this one can only deduce, that they want to have it exactly how it is currently. They have a power position to enforce it, so assume to not have to take any consideration of anyone else. So they afford themselves an extermination war against HTTP, the victims are ignored. Thus they also believe they can afford to reject entering on any arguments. Generally they only discuss as long they believe to be able push themselves through. But when lost they simply exit and run away, repeatedly observed.

Exactly the behaviour of propagandists who want to justify their form of dictatorship, but not discuss constructively. Most likely because fanatism does not allow any compromises, so also does not want to help in constructing such. But also the behavior of people whose feelings of guilt have been awoken, who then deny themselves, from not wanting to face their fears and better themselves.

Ultimatively the entire dispute amounted to value systems, which totally collided. They "must" protect people, letting those "endanger" themselves is unacceptable. After all they are followers of the "only true" security by HTTPS, who reject any "heretical" openness of HTTP. But other require its openness, demand tolerance of it, rejecting this is unacceptable. Between their politically "neccessary" closedness and others technically neccessary openness no compromise can be found. Which is why this conflict will only be solvable by rendering them harmless.

(In this a parallel to the DUL mail admins became visible: They were over 5 years informed about its damage, that by this legitimate mails are systematically going lost as "spam". By which both the senders who send direct lose, as also the recievers on their servers. Many disputes resulted also to over 90% in rejection and demands that users "should go and adapt themselves". Even just allowing their recievers, who recognize their losses, to switch off the defective filters for their mail box was denied. "Reject without testing content" DUL applies to all, no matter the damage. Same as today enforced HTTPS applies to all, no matter the damage. Difference was only, that DUL was circumventable, even if with annoying work. Which is why that did not result in a campaign like this (which though now is being made up for, utilising the occation). Same was though the "we know it all" snobbishness of the mail admins. Which is also why the repeat with the web admins quickly become obvious, and Plan A already given up after 2 years of 2017 and 2018. Thus follows in 2019 building up and spreading Plan B.)

7.2: Plan B

Thus comes Plan B. This consists of reaching out to the general public, to collect up decent people, with the aim of through many of those excert social pressure on the web admins. For this as first step inform the various victims, who often do not recognize what is happening. But also as second pick up various sympathisants, who are often against such fanatics. For this aim at the large masses in the middle, which usually rejects extremists. From all of these build up an alliance of the open, to defend against enforced HTTPS.

In this especially aim for people, who are in a position to push through opening up. Such as web site operators, who have aquired such admins as staff, have been decieved and sabotaged by them. Thus one can counter their technical power position with an commercial power position, there where they have to take consideration becaue of getting their income. Whereafter they can only reform themselves or leave. No matter which of these, they will after not be doing any damage any more, so have been rendered harmless.

For this information about about their hidden deeds is now being spread. In this in particular describing their effect on their victims, to show why it is so unacceptable. At the same time also distribute arguments against their views and statements and teachings. In particular show how their dictatorship stands against freedom. For this exist this campaign and web site.

This all sounds in some respects like a bad dystopical future SciFi film, a totally overdrawn situation and storyline. But is it not a speculative invention, but the actual Internet of today, with real victims who are in the meantime suffering massively, because paranoid insanity and thoughlessness have strook. The greatest difficulty will be to convince people, that such is happening for real, that the up to now Brave new World of the Internet is for the first time showing large cracks. Because here a new group of powerfull has come into existance, from which people are by now dependant, but who lack at fitting resposibility of handling a power position, and also of being used to handling criticism.

For this the tests further down exist, so one can find out where and how much this really is the case. But one can also rely on, that at least the section of fanatics will completely make an exhibition of themselves when confronted, as they have already repeatedly demonstrated. Thus well confirming the criticism. This because of being incapable of accepting such. After all these can not accept anything, which runs counter their views, so can not face it, and so also not take into account the consequences of it. Which is why they also will not notice, how much they are are shooting in their own foot. (The thoughtless will in comparison just be totally confused, because lacking observancy they up to now noticed nothing.)

7.3: Base

Thus the fight for liberation commences. Aim is, we want the Internet back open again, as it was in 2015, before the enforced HTTPS web admins came up. Base of the Internet as worldwide medium can only be tolerance and openness, because only on that everyone wordwide can build up.

Base of this is, that there only exist two ways in life, friendship and cooperation, or enemyship and fighting. Friendship avoids losses and suffering, is therefore to be preferred where possible. Which leads to the known approach, of "live and let live", and so to tolerance. Only from this arises civilisation, and so living better than in barbarism. Even sufficiently intelligent egoists recognize, that such behaviour is in their own long term interest, because of saving more losses than it costs profits.

But this requires, that both sides take part, both recognize this precondition and respect each other. Where one side does not take part, the other side has to also forgo it, else they only have own costs and despite this also losses from the other, up until being destroyed. This they want to prevent. Which leads to the know attitude, of "be tolerant with all except with intolerance". Fanatism destroyes, because it can not be tolerant, so it has got to be eradicated. It offers no mercy, so it also earns none. Only the insufficiently intelligent egoist fails at recognizing this. Which also applies to those, who mentally blinded by panical fear have become selectively stupid.

When only one side steps out of line conflict and enemyship arise, how it has happend here. Then the attacked can only chose giving up or defending themself, whichever leads to less loss. Without fight the result is going down, and thus not living in peace. The attacked do not want this, need open, are not getting it from the fanatics. So resistance is unavoidable, to with fight for liberation stop the disturbance, after which peace will only again be possible.

For this they can only use what has remained usable. One limit can still come from, how far one is prepared to go in this. Extending above friendship and cooperation or enemyship and fighting, from binary "either/or" to analogue "as far as the attacker went", allows quite a bit. After "attacker went up to guaranteed throwing out of web, unless one can and wants to update", allows going up to threatening with loss of job, unless they recognize and accept tolerance. Like any fight this will cost losses, on both sides, but that is for the attacked less bad than going under without. Exactly because this barbarism is bad, because it only leaves bad and worse as choice. Therefore one should avoid thoughlessly starting a fight. But when one has to do with fanatics, one has no other choice as to take the lesser evil.

For this we now are organising an alliance, to build up public pressure on the fallible web admins. This up to going through their employers, by informing these, showing them their losses of readers and potential customers. (And also with DUL mail admins their losses of senders and potential customers.) After which these will from their own interest will help us, because against common target. With this we can render the fanatics and thoughtless harmless, no matter if by informing the later or reforming or simply taking out the former.

7.4: Targets

Not all web admins have become bad. Some are open, but the large majority of web sites are by now closed. When one looks nearer, mainly small personal sites with their many small admins are more likely open, but large Web 2.0 platforms with professional admins are near completely closed. Thus range 10 to 30% of all web admins are good, but way over 90% professionals infected, either become fanatic or only followed thoughtlessly. Thus we want to respect the good ones as friends, only proceed against the bad ones as enemies. The tests further down are also for this, so that one can recognize who is friend or enemy.

Aim is not to destroy the enemies, just to render them harmless. For this one only has to "kill" the paranoid insanity or false teaching which has taken them, free them from it. For this one can bring them to insight and turning around by spreading knowledge. This especially with those, who only acted thoughtlessly, following a "This is how one does it today" teaching, but now recognize. But also those who believed in it, but after seeing the damage turn around. Which is why we are informing all, to reform them where possible.

Only those who are too corrupted, that they refuse to recognize, are then to be taken out. Possibly the confrontation of being given the notice will bring a share to their senses. And be that only after at a new job experiencing a repeat of it, or even multiple. Or even after the problem becomes known enough, already failing while looking for a job, also repeatedly, until getting no job, and so recognizing.

But also a remnant of unsaveably broken is to be expected, which even after finding no job any more do not want to give up, despite destroying themselves with this. Some extreme fanatics will regard themselves as unjustly persecuted "holy" saviours of the word, who will never capitulate before the "evil" openness, prefer to sacrifice themselves in fight against it.

But no matter which happens, the target can be reached in any case, with reforming or taking out, so that the web becomes again usable for all, no matter what they can or want to use for this.

Action is so selective, against all who use an enforced HTTPS Redirect. But with forgiving them, as soon as they see reason and become repentant, open up again and allow HTTP. This as permanent offer of peace, open to all who turn round. With then again living in friendship as better situation becoming possible, instead of continuing in enemyship. Here also applies back to "live and let live", better late than not at all. With this we offer all an escape from conflict, as soon as they stop attacking. The tests further down are also for this, so that one can recognize who has changed sides, or was simply replaced. The target is reached, when the situation has been reversed, enforced HTTPS has fallen from above 90% to below 10% (same as happend with DUL in 2015). The measure used is, when an average search machine request brings this share of links.

7.5: Methods

Deciding here it to know the adversary! Know and avoid their strengths else one loses. Know and exploit their weaknesses else one fails. Herein is important, that the fanatics before everything are massively scared. With this they have made themselves selectively stupid, now have panic, no defense against fear, so took up ever more of it. Driven by this they spread fear among each other, stiring each other up. For this they exploited latent "bad state" sentiments, were able to so collect some sympathies, even if they are just a bunch of insane. To this add all the uncritical professional authorities and those thoughtlessly following them.

From this though came their attack against completely uninvolved, those became victims. Those are now defending themselves, want to reverse this situation. For this we can show up the fanatics as the real "bad attackers", and the thoughtless as ignoramuses. That will give the end of whatever sympathy for them. Thus the cryptos will fall from having a bit of sympathy to their victims gaining far more of it, the situation gets reversed.

For this we can exploit as method, that they have mainly scared each other group internally. The external world knows little of this, has not developed their fears with them, has not become prejudiced by this, is just unknowing. Thus we can now aim for informing externals, build up resistance on up to now neutral ground. Thus this campaign conciously is aimed at general public, and not only at professional people, of which many have failed. The fallible web admins will by this get discredited, when their behaviour and statements are bared open, and then get confirmed in collisions with the fanatic section of them.

Against this they have no approach. They as movement have no coherency to recognize their errors and revise them. This because they in the end have the same strategy as an horde of zombies, just infected by fears instead of bites. Therefore they also have no ability to take up criticism, where they meet such. This combined with after losing running away, which also leads to no reporting to inside. This prevents them from in the own interest warning their own side. Thus they have no planning from this, can not now make an ordered retreat, neither tactical one nor the now appropriate strategical one. This is most likely what Plan A failed on, on their incapability of communication, externally and internally. So remained only their propaganda, built up over years, while the complaints of the victims went unheard. So the thoughless were not warned either.

Now comes Plan B. In which the resistance will now proceed planned and organized, only has to catch them up. For this it just needs to inform the large masses of decent but unknowing people, get them up against the fallible. This including informing the mostly also decent content producers, who also belong to the losers. And some of whom also directly or indirectly employ and pay the web admins, and for this expect fully functional servers. This can now be utilized, to reform the admins or simply eliminate them. Without coherency they have no chance to develop an own Plan B. Which is why it is just a question of time, until we will have cought up with and overwhelmed them. And of the amount of collateral damage, which they will have caused by then. For this I expect, due to the messed up situation, which has about 5 years of development behind it, comparable 5 years.

8: How does one test for affected sites?

Now the action is known, selectively against some web admins. Thus many will want to know, which exactly are the affected web sites, and so which web admins behind them are to be aimed at. In particular if their own site is affected, and their own web admin to be aimed at! Here exist various methods, to find out if a specific site uses enforced HTTPS. These range from simple but imprecise to exact but involved. Here they are sorted by how involved.

8.1: Google

The easiest is with a random browser do a Google (or any other search engine) request, which gives the specific site as an result. Then one can look at the given URLs in the search results. If there the links to this Site are HTTPS instead of HTTP (that is start with https:// instead of http://, or the later is often not even shown) the site is fairly sure with a Redirect, and so closed. But with https:// can also be only linked with HTTPS. And also with http:// the site could have since then become closed, was just still open the last time when it was indexed. This test is so simple but principially unsafe, because Googles (or other search engines) policy and behaviour is undocumented and so unknown.

8.2: Browser

Also simple is explicitely typing a HTTP URL into any browser, or modifying a present URL from HTTPS to HTTP. It then HTTP stays, no Redirect back to HTTPS comes, the site is proven open. But even without Redirect the browser can itsself return to HTTPS, because of a HSTS entry set, specially when modifying from HTTPS to HTTP. Against this effect one can use a guaranteed unused browser, or at least one guaranteed never used on this specific site. That is also simple, but stays unknown it that with the unused really is correct.

8.3: Telnet

Really 100% safe is only the Telnet test. But it is also with distance the most involved, both in understanding it and also in applying it. Possibly one will have to ask help from a computer expert one trusts, who hopefully comprehends the following. For this one needs a program which, can use use the Telnet protocol (an old remote login method). In this one must enter as Host or Server the name of the website (that which is in the URL after the http:// but before the third /). As port enter 80 (HTTP web traffic). If the program has an option for after connection ends automatically closing or remaining open, the later is to be selected. After connecting (there is no output from the server, but the Telnet program may add some of its own) one can manually type HTTP protocol (the dialog that browsers use to order specific pages from web servers).

In that simply enter the line "GET / HTTP/1.0" (all between the "", but without these, there are spaces before and after the first / but not before or after the second) and then Return. Followed by the line "Host: <WebsiteNamen>" (again without the "", and with <WebsiteNamen> replaced by the same name used above at Host, with space after the : but note before) with after it second Return. Followed by an empty line by third Return. The name is so needed twice, because the first tells Telnet which server to go to, and the second tells the server which web site one wants to have from it (the browser does both automatically, but Telnet makes no such assumptions). What follows after is the servers output, which can scroll by for quite long with a larger home page. This is followed by automatically closing the connection, therefore if possible above select remaining open.

From this output one can evaluate the beginning, after scrolling back up to the top. More precise the first block of lines, before the first empty line, which is the servers answer (with all after the empty line being the actual page content). If the first line is a "HTTP/1.1 200 OK (or with 1.0 instead of 1.1) this is provenly an open server, which has just given one the page (the possibly large jumble of data after).

If it has there "HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently" one has to evaluate further the short rest of the first block. Important for this is the line which begins with "Location: ". If it, despite ordering HTTP with port 80, has a https:// URL to the same server in it, then the server is provenly closed. Because that is the underhanded Redirect of enforced HTTPS for detouring to HTTPS.

8.4: Mailtest

This telnet method can as only one also be adapted, to see if a mail server has enforced TLS. Which is even a bit more complicated. As largest hurdle one has to find out the server name, which is not identical with the mail domain name behind the @! How to do this, resolving the MX record, is too complicated to explain here, because very variable depending on system. Here one will have to even more ask help from a computer expert one trusts. The best way for this is analysing the mail header of a mail which has arrived, the block of lines at top, which all start with Word-Word-Word:, where the name is recorded in one of the Recieved: lines (these are the "post marks" from all the servers through which the mail went). But even for this an layman will surely need help, in particular if the mailer only partially displays these lines.

Once one has the server name, one can test comparably. Just with port 25 (SMTP mail traffic) instead of 80, and with manually typing SMTP protocol instead of HTTP protocol (the dialog that mailers use to send specific mails to mail servers). For this best send oneself a test mail, instead of downloading a home page.

In Telnet the line "HELO <Mailserver>" (again all between the "", but without these, after the HELO a space, and with <Mailserver> the host name of ones own computer, or if one has none second best the one of the mail server). Then "MAIL FROM: <Mailadress>" (without "", and as <Mailadress>< and > of the mail address are by the standards not needed, are only to separate possibly added names from the address, which the sending mailer should actually do. But some mail servers to be safe also split these off, and some missconfigured ones even fail without them! Then "RCPT TO: <Mailadresse>" (this one the target address, when testing ones own server also the own address).

After connecting and after every input the server should answer with one or a few lines. The last one after connecting should be "220 MailserverName and so on", and after that always "250 something or other OK". But generally all 200er numbers at the beginning are acceptable. If one gets to an OK after the RCPT TO: the server is provenly open, one can send "Quit" to abort without actually sending a mail. But if one sees a "550 A TLS connection is required" or comparable, then the server is provenly closed. Because that is the demand of enforced TLS blocking.

(If one sees a 500er number, often 554, with something in line of "Service not available" or "No SMTP service" or "Not authorized" or comparable, despite this being a provenly functioning mail server, this is a good sign, that one has one of the remaining mail servers with DUL in the "reject without testing content" form. Same with an URL in the error message is a sure sign, because this is often done with DUL from justifying the deliberate failure, but very seldom with real errors.)

9: How can one take part in this proceeding?

Thus this is a large matter, correcting it demands many helpers. Alone one can not do such any more, this needs advancing with mass. After both the problem is known, and how to proceed against it, and also the targets to aim for, some will want to join in. For this there exist multiple possibilities.

Anyone who has got a web site, can obviously free it from enforced HTTPS, if it is one of the many affected by this. With this one is already not any more part of the damage to the victims, only neutral, or even better helping.

Independant of above being the case, one can anyway place links and so spread knowledge of the problem. With this one can reach others, who can open up, and also spread further. Even if one can do nothing other than spreading, this helps reach others, who can effect more. Thus spreading is the most important, the wider and repeatedly the better. This concerns in particular bloggers. But it applies even if ones own web presence is only a social media site on a Web 2.0 platform. Which will very likely be affected by enforced HTTPS. Bonus points, if one reaches thats operators and corrects them.

Who for links to action websites like icons/buttons, can here download one:

SAVE HTTP Button

(Who don't like PNG bitmap icons/buttons, and wants to draw their own: The official definition is: 2 lines of text "SAVE" and "HTTP", all in capital letters, colour green on black, font any monospace (that is with all characters same width), double as high as wide (here 8x16 pixels, the 4x2 characters so give 32x32). For the actual icon add left and right 1 blank, plus top and bottom a half one (gives then 48x48). For the button add same amount of gray 2/3 bright (#A0A0A0) (gives 64x64), with outside 1/4 of it (here 2 pixels) of beveled edge (left and top white, right and bottom 1/3 gray (#505050)).)

Additionally one can write own texts. No matter if web pages or press articles or blog postings. These with own arguments, or even just views or assessments of existing ones, which both adds more relevance, in particular by showing that this is of interest for more than just one person.

Such texts can also conciously point out or extend partial aspects, which are important to the writer. Or simply shorten, to what the writer considers important. Or even add new aspects unknown to me. Or use other media than text, applying all forms of protest, which are used against right extremists or left extremists or religion extremists, because here against comparable crypto extremists.

While this here as basic text is conciously written all encompassing, as "Buffet" of all. It is so also ideal for others to link to, for all which they have left out, this then delivering further reading material to consolidate. That also with the others acting as alternate introductions, or even as recommendation of specific points with alternate reading order.

Even those who have no web site, can spread knowledge of the problem. For this use emails, or whatever one uses to communicate. Also in these this text can be linked. Again spreading is the most important.

Even outside of the net one can help, in form of a printable flyer, to directly give to others or display at events. This is available in HTML or Postscript or PDF format. Or even make ones own flyers. (The first publishing of this text was with the flyer displayed at an retro computing event.)

10: Who can effect something in this proceeding?

Only complaining seldom works. Especially after these web admins have shown themselves to be so stubborn. So this needs people, who have influence over them, with this can effect something. Luckily quite a few such exist! In addition to the surfers who get thrown out, enforced HTTPS also hits the content providers. These also get affected, because sabotaged by the web admin inbeween, thus they lose readers and potential customers! (And also with DUL sabotaged by the mail admin inbetween, thus losing senders and potential customers.)

Thus all these co-affected also have an interest to proceed against this. And some also have a position in which they can excert pressure against them, in contrast to the surfers, who are usually defenseless against their loss. This in particular employers, thus they are the main target of spreading above knowledge of the problem.

10.1: State and Offices

The state has regulations against discrimination. But these are getting underrun by such web admins. This even becomes a case of office failing its purpose, if the target audience can not get in any more. This in particular where offices of social security can not any more reach the poorer citizens they are aimed at, with which the Digital Divide becomes even more a pushing out of society. Additionally the enforced updating is illegal, where placing mature citizens under guardianship by the state is violating the constitution. Offices can push through opening their sites by order from above.

10.2: Business and Firms

The economy wants to make turnover. Firms afford large expenditures, to just get hold of percents more of customers. Now contrast this with such web admins, wo simply accept losses of customers in percents. That becomes sabotage of firms interests, just to further their own political aims. All that without having obtained permission. Firms can push through opening their sites by threat from above, or even handing out the notice if refused.

10.3: Organisations and Universities

Organisations can so unwantedly end up with a contradiction of their aims to such methods. Especial with social or environment focused ones. On the one hand they often have activists as staff, and so also more such among their web admins. They are thus even stronger affected, as above Wikipedia centrally involved. On the other hand they also have activists as rest of their staff, are so also more likely prepared to act against such admin sabotage. In particular where it impacts their reputation, which for many organisations who make demands of justice is important for their credibility. Themselves throwing out people endangers this massively. Organisations can push through opening their sites by threat or handing the notice.

10.4: Press

There is lots of news today. But lots of it is always the same, endlessly repeated, just slight variations on it. Here comes something totally new and completely unknown. The press has as profession especially to criticise fallible people, and here a new type of such appears.

This additionally hits various victims widely scattered, addresses all. No matter if right wing press, which traditionally criticises abuse of power by left wing bureaucrats, or left wing press, which traditionally criticises greed by right wing bureaucrats. Here there are web admins, which as bureaucrats are missusing a technical instead of a juristical or financial power position, but appart from this are exactly like both other groups. And they are even doing this from themselves, without order from politics or management above, and thus irrelevant if in state or economy, because done as self willed and high handed action. So this is of same interest for both right and left wing press. (Also the web admins scatter from right to left, which can not get then a bonus from either side. If anything characterizes them, then loud antiauthoritan rethoric, but combined with a contradicting heavily authoritan behaviour, which can also not gain them a bonus from either side.)

Further here consider everything about net neutrality. This applies just as much to server neutrality. Both net and servers are base for the data traffic of user+PC to PC+user. Both have to be neutral, so that one can rely on them. Therefore servers should be just as neutral as routers. No matter if one stands right or left wing, no matter where writer and/or reader stand, and also no matter if web server or mail server.

Add to this, that a journalist unlikely wants to swipe something new like this under the table. But denouncing this, while their publishers own web site is possibly doing it, would be a contradiction, which directly touches their credibility. So journalists will have an interest, to check if their publication is affected by it. If yes, they will want to get rid of this, and doing so will very likely collide with such admins. By this they will make their personal experiences with their reactions, some fanatical, some only thoughtless. This false behaviour striking so visibly near them, will bring them up against it. But also editor and publisher behind them will like the loss of turnover just as little, as the rest of the economy. The press can thus not only open up their sites, but also spread knowledge with conviction.

10.5: Bloggers

Bloggers want to reach people. They lose the gain aimed for, when readers get thrown out by this. Add to that for social or environment themed ones all from above. But also for all liberal or libertarian themed the rejection of dictatorship. But also for all conservative against getting unneccessary change forced upon them. All sides will be riled up by this false behaviour, where it strikes at them.

Also the contradicion will work, of rejecting it but site is doing it. But also the operators of blogging platform will not like it, as their income from page views get reduced just as much by throwing out readers. Here also they can not just open up their sites, but also spread knowledge. Even if blogging sites are more likely open than others, so less is to be got from here, are in the meantime over 50% of them affected. (Same applies also for wikis, at page editors and platform operators. Also over 50% affected.) (Same with web comics, at creators and readers. Even if there still below 50% affected.)

10.6: Webadmins

Appart from employers also their co-workers are affected. 90% of the addressed web admins have fallen to paronoid insanity, but an unknown share of other admins have not. They all will from this bad behaviour recieve damage to their professional image. They all risk getting a reputation, as officials had it 100 to 300 years ago, and partially have kept until today. The decent ones can clearly distance themselves from this, by showing that they are open. But that will due to their smaller share only have a limited effect. So it will be better, if they engage themselves to help turn round the insane, because the faster the problem is solved, the less the reputation of all will suffer, including theirs.

But this will most likely work the least well, seeing the demonstrated missing mercy of the fanatics towards other people. Especially as some fanatics are proven ready to sacrifice their own reputation or even their friends for something so "important". Though this could, after getting known wide around, still become too much for some. Because up to now they could wipe it unter the table as a minority problem, but less so when an larger part of the public turns against them.

At least this can reach all the web admins, who only acted thoughtless, following a "This is how one does it today" teaching, and now notice their error and turn round. But also some, who believed in it and convinced took part, but after seeing the damage understand and turn round. Same applies for professional authorities, who uncritically spread the laters teachings to former, and had recommended these as "best practise". But also web software designers, who recommended such configurations to admins, or even underhanded such to them without asking.

10.7: Crypto Users

Appart from employers and co-workers also other crypto users are affected. 90% of the addressed web admins have fallen to the paronoid insanity, but a unknown share of other crypto users have not. Some of them will get fear, that the reputation of cryptography will get damaged. They know very well, that they already with spreading crypto have threatened the states surveilance. And now some of them by withdrawing the majority of web traffic with underhanded HTTP have even sabotaged it. They will fear, than some in the state are annoyed, want to reverse this. First attempts, to disparage crypto as hiding place of criminals, which is not allowed to be, to justify measures against it, are already being seen.

Some will now fear, that the state could use the opportunity for an counterstrike, as soon as enough of the public associate crypto not with protection from real crimes, but mainly with "protection" from imagined "dangers", or even instead of merely regarding it as uninteresting, newly as fanatic or at least dictatoric. After which adversaries of crypto in the state could organise themselves to exploit this situation, in that not only demanding also-open but even enforcing only-open. After which crypto users will start to fear the loss of what they already believed to have for sure.

No matter if these would be full prohibitions of crypto, which are actually not to be expected, because encryption does have legitimate uses. Or only an proscribed systematic MitM measure to underrun crypto, which is also unlikely, because comparing signatures to verify servers also has legitimate uses. Or more likely to get server operators to open up back doors for the state, which does not prevent legitimate uses, still gives the state what it wants to have, but loses the Crptos what they want to have.

This simply with servers offering crypto only legally allowed, if operated with back doors. (Which assumedly will only apply to crypto for encrytion, which is in the way of the state, not to crypto for comparing signatures or authentication, which is not in the way.) Followed by forcing compliance with this by blocking net access, so all profit oriented Web 2.0 mass providers will comply with it. Only small activist providers will resist, which though produces less smoke screen. Thus these become recognizable and persecutable, short active but as soon as known enough gone again. why normal people will not use these, which will reduce the smoke screen even more.

At which above disparaging is most likely aimed, laying a base to legitimate such. They could now exploit this opportunity, as soon as many normal people regard the cryptos not just as paranoid insane, but even as damaging, to make such non hidable measures acceptable by the majority of the population.

The later is far more likely than the micro danger from spying if one uses HTTP. And the later already suffices, to drive many cryptos into insanity. Thus fear of losing crypto can build up, exactly because of the targetted peoples massive overblown fear based way of thinking!

This can expecially hit the fanatic web admins fully, as for them crypto is so important from this fear, that they want to force it onto all. From this lots of fear of losing can come, at some effecting turn around and opening up. Followed by striving to get others to do the same, to fend off the loss. Which will divide the movement, breaks the up to now solid internal group dynamic, of confirming each others fears, thus scattering doubts. The more recognize and turn round, the more of them will scatter. This will result in a reverse feedback loop, which hits ever more, as exact reversing of the internal group dynamic up to now, which spread the insanity. Thus this can become very effective.

10.8: Antitregulators

What could also happen, is that the lawmakers are pissed off from their behaviour. No matter if it disturbs democratic politicians, that a group of self-appointed dictators are acting without any legitimation. Or if it disturbs non-democratic rulers, that someone is taking power without their permission. Both could result in enacting of laws.

Add to this populace which will be partially pissed. Be this feeling cheated, because of the expropriation from behind. Or feeling exploited, because of the underhanded redirect and/or HSTS to abuse their data traffic unasked for a smoke screen. Or simply express their uneasiness, because being ever more dependant on people, on whom they have little influence, which follow whatever internal logics, that do not coincide with user interests. Or even just having enough of security measures, which unneccessarily harm. Which for politicians makes enacting of laws attractive for capturing votes at elections.

As part of this enforced HTTPS could be recongnized as discrimination against the life styles of various HTTP users. Followed by placing under official prohibition above criteria where enforced HTTPS is unacceptable. Or even because of the abuse, expand this to setting HSTS without explicite demand of secure. (Possibly also placing under prohibition above criteria where enforced TLS is unacceptable. Or even because of preventing sending direct, expand to using the "reject without testing content" form of DUL, or better even to any IP address or other meta data based techniques.) Or even demand full net neutrality including server neutrality, with prohibition of any enforced life style (and also of any enforced spam filtering).

Who if this happens complains, that once again freedom has been reduced by regulations, and claims that personal responsibility is better, may have a point. But they should consider, that such large words should be followed by fitting deeds, also accepting this responsibility, not just claim it as excuse to hide egoism behind! Here one can now only go and complain to all those, who once again have delivered a great demonstration, how much this has failed at least by them. With which they have worked into the hands of all, who want to regulate something as important as the Internet. This could easily become the case Titanic of the Internet. Those who don't want this, can perhaps still try to effect a counterdemonstration of just in time recognizing and opening up again. This could help, to turn round some web admins (and possibly also mail admins), who don't want to work under such regulations. And also get those, to excert themselves to turn others around.

11: What is to be expected as reactions?

Of course the targeted will not watch the proceedings against them without reacting. Especially attempts to deny all are to be expected, when their ego blocks itsself against being broken open. Even more because they, blinded by it, do not recognize their attack as such, thus will be dumbfounded by any form of criticism. That is just the normal behaviour of people who are affected by loss of reality, or just thoughlessly follow such, that they due to lack of observancy miss all signs of danger.

11.1: Excuses

Who neets such and criticizes them, can expect a mass of excuses. Here various already seen ones are collected, with fitting answers to them, for when one meets them. Aim is not to learn them all off by heart, but only to become aware of them. Best case remembering them will help one in clashes, worst case one can look them up after a loss, to the next time be better off, so step for step becoming experienced.

Surely will come as first, that they have done everything correctly, so as it "should be". This is the standard method of such people, to regard what they believe to be as only correct, thus redefining everything contradicting to false. Here one can answer, they should have noticed, that others regard other stuff as right.

Then surely comes, that they just wanted to make the net more secure for all, to protect people. This also a standard method, to distract from bad effects with good intentions, no matter the consequences for others are. Up to the old known "the end justifies the means" as most extreme form. Here one can answer, throwing someone out is far more damage than danger was threatening.

Then just as surely comes, that they did not know, that they were causing damage. Here one can answer, that not knowing initially was acceptable. Nobody can know everything, that is biologically given. But from this also follows, that no one can know what causes damage, so correspondingly should advance with caution. Thus also consider if something can cause damage, which in particular happens often with security measures. Thus one should especially pay attention to complaints, that something is causing damage. To react to such with rejection is unacceptable. Latest after warned so guilt ensues, they are perpetrators, the others victims. Such rejecting instead of accepting exposes the "protection" as lame excuse.

Further surely comes, that this is todays state of the art, one does it so, or even this is expected so. This also a standard method, to distract from detailed effects with generalities. Up to the old known "done exactly as commanded", which is though totally unscrupulous. Here one can answer, that technology should serve users, as they want it or even need it, not harm them. It above is followed by saying, that this was recommended so, one can answer, that one should not any more respect professional authorities who so uncritically spread a teaching which harms so badly. (These authorities will on the other hand either recognize their errors and distance themselves from these, so effecting reversal, or become unbelievable, and so at least not drive this any more.)

Also surely comes, that this is essential security, it "has to" be so, despite being irrelevant for way over 90% of all people in over 90% of their web traffic. This coming directly from their fears, which is why they consider it absolutely important. After all crypto has exactly because of this become for some a holy cow. Here one can answer, that it is the users decision, which security they want to have, and what price they are willing to pay for it. If they consider it as unimportant or too expensive, they should be allowed to live without it. Denying this to them instead of accepting exposes such "protection" as fanatism.

Also to be expected is, that this is neccessary, to prevent accidents if without also works. This also a standard method, to distract from damage with wanting to prevent other damage, while presenting the later as more important, despite it being lesser. Here one can answer, such accidents are also preventable with less dramatic methods. Even just without crypto no function critical edit links or credit card links suffices for this, plus offer HSTS for direct to crypto, if wanted. Perhaps after comes further excuse, that it is work, to rebuild and extend the web site software. Here one can answer, that this is only small amount of work. Instead of this from laziness excluding others is unacceptable.

They will surely often repeat, that we should "go and upgrade", with claims that then all is no problem, only those who "offend" against this have such. Given that his was already repeatedly brought up while Plan A. This also a standard method, to preach their moral teaching, as a case of the old known "it only hits sinners so it is not a problem" thinking. Here one can answer, no one may demand from others, to they have to live according to their moral views. Everyone should respect, that others have freedom, and are allowed to live according to that.

Also they will surely often repeat, that we are supposedly adversaries of crypto. Given that this was also often used while Plan A. This also a standard method, to distract from criticism by shooting down a straw man. Here one can answer, we do not reject cryptography or HTTPS, if they need that to live. We only reject enforced HTTPS, because that prevents our lives. We neither want all-crypto nor nothing-crypto, we want to be able to chose freely. They may have crypto, we may be without. We are not adversaries of crypto, but avoiders of it, while they are not only supporters of crypto, but fanatics for it.

Or they go to an even lower level, and simply defame us as stupid and/or ignorant. This also a standard method, to distract from criticism by not taking senders for serious, up to mocking them. Given that this was also often used while Plan A. Here one can answer, that attacks on a person clearly show up, how much they are lacking in effective arguments, that they only so can work off their injured ego. (After the first publishing of this text a common reaction was, according to the description by a colleage, to treat this all as a "joke intermezzo of a backwards swiss entirely without clue". Perhaps these mockers should remember, that the swiss have a long tradition of fighting for freedom, which includes toppling inflated regents from their high horse down to the hard ground of reality.)

Even more surely will come decrying this as "attack", when they start being hit by job losses. This also a standard method, to blame the victims after these defend themselves. This in particular as they do not recognize their own attack as such, see the victims counterstrike as first. Here one can answer, they should not have launched a general attack on 15 bis 50 millions of people. Or at least should, after doing this without noticing, have entered on critisicm and aborted it, instead of failing Plan A. After which plan B only became neccessary, to effect a stop by external pressure. To this adds with their actions leaving the victims only few possibilities, and with their collateral damage of their employers only enabling this Plan B. Which is why we victims are now striking back with this. What is not an attack, but a defense by counterstrike, in form of showing up their collateral damage. Blaming the victims is just a case of punnishing the bringer of a message. This double so, when they after their behaviour has got exposed, are requested by employers to stop doing this, but reject that, and are only fired by them for that. Or they as rejection hand in their notice.

11.2: Risks

Possibly there will be accusations from uninvolved crypto users, if they fear damage of reputation from this action, or even such damaged reputation explicitely gets exploited for actions against them. Because of this complaining, that they are also getting hit as collateral damage, or at least getting the risk of this. Here one can answer, is is unfortunate, that they are also getting hit. But the reputation of an movement suffers from the damage, that its most visible extremists create. They should have noticed and rejected the fanatics in their movement. But didn't do anything, just let these spread their views and behaviour without being criticized, implicitely giving them right.

Even while the Plan A phase none of them helped to criticise the fanatics, which perhaps would have allowed doubts to arise in some of them, perhaps still would have saved Plan A. But that did not happen, which is why now Plan B has to come, despite some risk that they get collateral damage from it. Even more so, as the web admins by their enforced measures do not give us any other choice. Thus for us as before completely uninvolved total loss of the Internet is certain, but for them as connected only loss of cryto threatens and also only perhaps. So less damage and less risk is acceptable.

Here applies the old addage, that who comes too late gets punnished by world history. The best that remains now with Plan B, is to help in rendering such admins harmless as fast as possible, so that the target of getting enforced HTTPS web sites below 10% is reached fast. With which the need to spread this criticism further disappears, less people find out about it, damage to reputation of crypto and risk from that are minimized.

For this they can "thank" the fanatics, who killed Plan A. But also all others, who did not stop these, so did not help Plan A. Which can drive both of those to tidy up faster. And also earns them at least some sympathy and pity, if they do get hit by collateral damage.

Should crypto still go under from this, one can advise them, to question their overblown fears. For this they can contrast themselves with normal people, without the twisting influence of the group dynamic of their subculture of fear. From this they can recognize, that there exist two types of security, running away and hiding oneself or if neccessary fighting with uncovering and collecting an alliance.

The digital society moves anyway unavoidably exponentially towards arbitrary data availability. Which is already known since decades, and by some gets called Technological Singularity or Technopathy. In such a society secrets as a strategy have no long term survival chance any more, are an discontinued model. Already mid 1990s the expression "privacy was yesterday" appeared among attentive insiders. Why they regard those who still today deny this as living in the past.

Thus it is better, to prepare oneself for the coming future, regard its digital openness not as a threat, but use it as a chance. After all it is those, who have more to hide which have more to lose from this, in a world where the majority of people are decent, tolerate a lot, except intolerance against others. By which all acceptable people can get help from many, especially against aggressors, including all attackers which they fear. At least as soon as the attacked create a PR desaster for the attackers, exactly as it is being done with this text. The old addage of "honnest lasts the longest" will in the digital world unavoidably get ever more important.

(Thus the real best answer to possibly missused surveilance is the surveiled state, including freedom of press to show up discovered missuses. That was already recognized by the founders of democracy centuries ago, despite then only having paper and quill and postal coach, plus in best case printers shop and news papers! Which also lead to prohibition against censorship, because that prevents such communication. People who despite knowing the digital world, still do not understand this today, have got a lot to catch up.)

Who now claims, that the mass in the middle is not decent, should urgently revise their picture of this mass. The widely spread expression of "look at how stupid the average is, and half are below that" may be mathematically correct. But the rating of the average as stupid, is far below the real level of them. This because most peoples views are strongly influenced by news media, which for spectacle mainly show the 5% worst, and a bit of the best 5% if they stand out enough, but the 90% in between are largely ignored or at least marginalized. In reality the populace in the middle is far better as its reputation, and in particular way better than any "better" dictatorical groups. Worst case it is still unknowing, or even been deliberately missinformed.

Generally one can assume, that most of the populace respects the freedom to live as one wants to (at least as long one respects their freedom to live as they want), and reject any "freedom" to harm others (no matter if deliberately prohibiting or just knowingly as side effect preventing). Only if someone really has something to hide, they will not get help, and rightly so. But whose behaviour repulses the mass in the middle so badly, should anyway be asking themself what they are doing wrong, why they want to live a behaviour to which they can not openly stand before most of others. Who still thinks, that their behaviour is right, thus is getting rejected injustly, should ask themself why they do not commit themself to end this rejection by informing others. Which many groups who have been rejected for centuries or even millenia have done in the last decades, with success, by making the populace in the middle knowing instead of leaving them missinformed.

11.3: Earned

But obove only applies to crypto uses, who are not involved in the enforced HTTPS thing, or possibly still to turned around former ones. Though not to the fanatics, who really deserve any form of damage. After all they have inflicted heavy losses on us, wanted to go up to exterminating, have only left us the choice of the lesser damage, and were not to be dissuaded from this. Why we are now purposefully striking back at them, with a tactic of "here we will die anyway, so break through the middle of the enemy, because we will so more likely survive". In this we are not begrudging them any loss.

With this we aim at the web being open again. For this in best case them recognizing and reforming themselves. Or simply accepting, because of threat of losing job. Or worst case taking them out, if not even that works. That is Plan B. But if possibly regulations ensue, or enforced back doors, or even MitM measures, or even up to prohibitions of crypto, we well also not begrudge them that.

We recognize, that next to use avoiders of crypto there also exist real adversaries of crypto, which possibly now will profit. But that is fault of those, who destroyed Plan A, only left us Plan B. They have thus ultimatively worked into the hands of their enemies. More precisely they they only turned us into enemies, by attempting to exterminate. And most likely they also only made the state into a real enemy, by sabotaging it, before it was only an imagined one. If it now wants to persecute them, and for this exploits the damage of reputation by us, they have braught it up against themselves, and driven us to giving it this occasion. Thus they will have deserved any damage fully. For irony such a consequence would nearly be impossible to outdo.

This given that those persecuted should more hide themselves, and not produce avoidable public annoyance. This applies the same, if they only imagine the persecution. They should definitely not create such large damage, that the victims of this want to explicitely proceed against them. No matter if sabotaged state wants to destoy their hiding, or collateral damaged surfers wanto to show them up.

This even more so when they attack the entire world, with this hitting 15 to 50 millions of people. Which practically guarantees, that at least someone is among them, who is both affected (all retro computer users who are unavoidably getting thrown out), understands what is happening (because retro computer users understand technical stuff well), and knows how to make a PR desaster out of this (from as older generation already decades of observing and analysing such), has a tradition of commiting themself (from the retro computer scene being self organsized), and can afford time for this (after losing many surf opportunities), and has the drive for this (from double annoyance of loss of web and wasted time instead of making interesting projects).

Who wants to complain about the damage which ensues, should remind themselves how they acted towardy the victims complaints about damage. Who did not there give mercy, has now none to expect. But they ignored all this. Just as using the entire principle of caution. As also that of accepting criticism by others. All was wiped under the table, because they know all. Thus came into being annother case of, who will not listen to criticism, has to feel loss. That applies even if it becomes an expensive lesson, even if total loss. May whatever is neccessary happen to them, that they come to insight and stop doing it. Mercy they will get none, that the victims deserve, not the perpetrators. (If they have luck, they may still hope for forgiveness. But that requires showing remorse, and that again insight, after overcoming their ego.)

That so many old wise sayings fit here so well, shows how much long known this all would actually be. But if one can learn something from history, this is that many people learn nothing from it, repeat mistakes already done, to get their own personal lesson. In particular know-alls ignore what others have learned. And expecially fear prevents using intelligence due to panic reaction, makes selectively stupid. So nothing was noticed and prevented.

What they did not learned by education, now has to be made up with experience, far more expensive. All that remains is to hope, that this lesson becomes expensive enough, to make it clear to many of them, how much nonsense they have perpetrated, followed by recognizing and bettering themselves. after which they in future will respect others, and that because of their damage and pain from it with lasting effect.


Home | Save HTTP !

This page is by Neil Franklin, last modification 2019.12.03