Blocking HTTP sites is a bit too far, but an insecure warning is perfectly reasonable as, let's be honest, it is not secure.
For a lot of people, a big scary warning page that says that a page is insecure is essentially a block. Yeah, you can still access it, but a lot fewer people will.
> let's be honest, it is not secure.
My original post is asking for an explanation of how it isn't secure. I would totally understand a browser warning if a user tries to submit a form over http, but for a page like the one I linked I don't see how it can adversely affect the user.
It's true that these things could also happen over an HTTPS connection, but then the prevention method is "don't go on sketchy websites." It's far more dangerous over HTTP because a user might already trust the site or author themselves.
I still don't see why either of those justify warning the user about the whole page. For the donation button, the browser could easily warn you with a big "insecure!" page when you click on the button. Regarding js exploits, I don't think https fixes that even for non-sketchy websites: I'm thinking of the js malware in ads and the recent cryptocurrency-mining ads on youtube.
But this implies that whenever you click on any link on a page served via HTTP, the browser should warn you with a big "insecure!" page. I think this is far more obtrusive than a simple "not secure" banner next to the URL.
> I don't think https fixes that even for non-sketchy websites
You're right, if the website served over HTTPS injects random JavaScript/is poorly designed. However, the danger with HTTP is that every single website is vulnerable to this attack, not simply the ones served by malicious or incompetent hosts.