I disagree on every point in your comment.

    > A static document is served on the linked page, no passwords are transmitted. Plaintext is perfectly enough for fulfilling requests for this document. TLS would just use more processing power and time to deliver the document.

While I don't have hard figures for the traffic volume for this domain, I'd wager it's on the order of 100,000 requests a month -- maybe on the order of a million on the high end. That's something you can easily handle with a micro instance in AWS as an example, and under almost every cloud hosting pricing scheme, the extra cost from the (honestly, quite minimal) difference in power from serving HTTPS rather than HTTP isn't billed. The additional time to deliver a document over HTTPS is imperceptible to humans on any remotely modern (last ~15 years) hardware on almost any connection outside of the absolute worst network environments.

That it doesn't receive sensitive data is moot -- it sends what can easily be considered sensitive data. White papers about encryption and obfuscation protocols are often of interests to, for example, political dissidents both in countries where they're at risk and abroad, and they may be targeted in either case. Modern extensions like ECH (which is beginning to be widely available[0]) offer a degree of protection against that, and prevent snooping in general.

Political dissidents aside, it's another channel advertisers can use to see your browsing habits and build up a targeted advertising profile. There have been isolated incidents where ISPs were caught injecting ads into users' pages; I think a more realistic issue would be ISPs auctioning off browsing histories.

    > If the website visitor is interested in downloading the document encrypted, he is free to use the HTTPS protocol with a browser setting.

We live in a world where almost all content is delivered over HTTPS thanks to the efforts of orgs like LetsEncrypt. I wouldn't have noticed that that document is plain-HTTP if not for the fact that I decided to toggle Firefox's HTTP-only mode earlier that day just to see what impact it has on day-to-day browsing.

Most people aren't careful about this, and most people probably prefer privacy if the option costs them nothing and takes no time.

    > But I don't see any reason why noiseprotocol.org would like all connections to them being encrypted; they are not an online bank. Enforcing TLS just prevents visitors without TLS support from being able to view documents on their website.

"Visitors without TLS support" represents a vanishingly small number of people that I don't even know how to describe. Who would this even be, in practical terms?

    [0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-encrypted-client-hello/