> You need to understand it's completely useless for websites where you are a passive consumer (i.e. you don't enter any information, just read articles and so on)
It's not. ISPs have injected ads. It also gives slightly less data to for ISPs to track since they only get the SNI header (domain name), not what articles you visited.
You could argue that ISPs shouldn't do that, and I'd agree, but unfortunately many people don't have a choice of ISP and some ISPs are shitty.
Yes, this is something I hear from my colleagues in the USA (I haven't seen it in Europe yet, it's unthinkable for me). Note that in this case you can perfectly use HTTPS. What we are talking is the situation where the website owner redirects HTTP to HTTPS (and in this case the ISP sees at least the initial article address anyway).
It's not. ISPs have injected ads. It also gives slightly less data to for ISPs to track since they only get the SNI header (domain name), not what articles you visited.
You could argue that ISPs shouldn't do that, and I'd agree, but unfortunately many people don't have a choice of ISP and some ISPs are shitty.