19 November 2012TechCrunch:
Facebook could have kept HTTPS as opt in. Faster browsing leads to less frustration, longer session lengths, and more ad views. Unfortunately, the people who are the least security savvy and therefore most vulnerable are probably the least likely to voluntarily enable HTTPS.
Personal info-driven business models like Facebook’s are built on trust. It needs users to feel secure enough to keep donating their data, and that’s why this little green lock could turn into greenbacks over time.
Technically, yes, HTTPS is slower than standard HTTP. But the difference might as well be negligible. TechCrunch makes it sound like Facebook have gone to the end of the Earth to do something good.
The article gives the impression that Facebook sacrificed everything in the name of security. That’s just not true. It required a menial level of effort (relative to Facebook’s overall talent pool) and a few more servers. Facebook did it because it is easy and is probably something they should have already done years ago; it’s as simple as that.
A lot of blogs, especially TechCrunch, need to understand that company and product changes aren’t required to have a secret agenda behind them.