They support SSL because some browsers force https, but they then force a redirect to a non-SSL page. Seems reasonable. I think I may be missing the point of this being posted on HN. Does it cause issues in certain workflows or something?
I like <a href="http://example.com" rel="nofollow">http://example.com</a> as it's IANA owned (or maybe ICANN) so more stable than most hobbyist versions.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example.com" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example.com</a>
I usually use <a href="http://captive.apple.com" rel="nofollow">http://captive.apple.com</a> for the same functionality of NeverSSL and if you're using any Apple devices, that is the address iOS/iPadOS/macOS would use for wifi login
<i>></i> some <i>browsers and sites automatically use https even when you don't type that in.</i><p>My experience is that <i>many</i> of them do. I think mine do, by default.
When I was trying to use the site a few weeks ago, port 80 wasn't working at all. Just port 443/HTTPS. So not only does it fail at never using ssl, but it also sometimes fails at doing HTTP.
Is this a joke? Seems to be the most bizarre example of a pivot for a service with such a straightforward purpose.<p>It’s like a vegan meat company also selling pork sausage just in case they miss out on some passing carnivores.