And if you host your own?

Then yes, you pay the maintenance overhead for doing so. I do it too, since I want to mess with these things and run things I can't easily run on shared hosting and if I'm taking care of a server and HTTPS for it anyways adding another site isn't much effort, but for just a static site it's overkill most of the time and kind of "your own fault" if you make it harder on you than it is.

That said, using certbot made it so painless I just started doing it at some point for everything I run and I only once had a small hiccup configuring a renewal-hook.

Yet setting up HTTPS on s3 is still non-trivial, and an additional ongoing expense.

Adding fire sprinklers to new construction is an additional expense, yet it's still required as a safety measure.

This argument from cost doesn't seem like a compelling one to me. It's not money being thrown away, it's delivering real added security.

The English government (well, they're the British government, but they don't get to set building rules for the bits of Britain that aren't England) didn't think fire sprinklers were necessary in big tower blocks and schools. Too many regulations you know, it hurts the economy.

Then not just one but two huge tower blocks in London burned down. So how about that, suddenly maybe tower blocks _did_ need sprinklers after all. Shame about all the dead people.

Then use a provider that makes it easy. My point wasn't that it's easy everywhere, just that for simple static sites you can just use a provider that makes it easy for you.