Because no sensitive content is being transferred. Why put the extra hassle of getting and installing a non-self-signed certificate for a blog where the user doesn't even submit data? There's no reason for that connection to be secure.
You're answering "why" instead of answering "why not" again. "Why should you lock your door if you don't have anything expensive?"
Plaintext HTTP should not exist, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I wouldn't have to come up with elaborate scenarios where having HTTPS from the get go would have saved lives, and you wouldn't have to come up with crazy "but that'll never happen" retort to them.
Unfortunately, plaintext HTTP exists, so here we are, with me telling you that the pro-gay rights piece you wrote on your static blog contains keywords that make it be viewed as extremism/terrorism by Russia's automated monitoring systems and anyone reading it gets immediately added to a watchlist. Unfortunately, a few of your readers are from russia and six months later those readers join a political protest against the killing of kittens or something. Their government notices that and makes sure to "take action". And to think HTTPS could have avoided that.
Locks come standard on every door, they don't expire after a given time and every child knows how to use them. See how your comparison to acquiring, setting up and maintainning an SSL certificate is nonsensical?
> And to think HTTPS could have avoided that.
If the NSA tags people who look for info on TOR as extremists, an hypothetical state might tag people who use HTTPS. And to think that HTTP could have avoided that! I mean, if every argument is an hypothetical, anything is possible.
Thank you for reinforcing my point, I appreciate the help.
Define "sensitive".
If there is a network attack[0] then the metadata of who is viewing which pages on your blog is revealed. With TLS, only the client/server address pair is leaked.
IPv6 will bring back enough IP's to allow each site to be it's own IP, and no longer require SNI...