Hacker News Reader

Without HTTPs links could be replaced and executable file downloads could be replaced with malware.

Right, I wasn't thinking about mitm concerns.

There are plenty of reasons even beyond privacy and MITM content changes. Supposedly HTTPS is better for SEO and also there are browser APIs[1] that only work in HTTPS context

[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Secure...

If you're building an application that requires the uses of these APIs, I'd hardly call that a static site, but maybe that's just me.

Static site generally just refers to the server serving static files.

I have several simple games hosted on Github Pages using the storage API which is on that list.

HTTP/2 is one of those things that only works over HTTPS so it can absolutely be a static site being served over it.

You can enable HSTS preload and prevent spoofing.

people sniffing on what kind of static content you are consuming. think public unsecured wifis or sensitive material.

True. I suppose for many types of content that could be a legitimate concern.