When a highway is plagued by bandits, the govt must go after the bandits and put them away, not close the highway or turn into a cramped tunnel made of armoured steel with only one narrow lane.

So which central govt should we trust to "put the bandits away" on the internet?

I'm saying that instead of doing away with plain-text protocols, maybe national govts can each regulate their ISPs to stop injecting content into the bits they transmit? That would go a long way towards increase of privacy. As for bad state (sponsored) actors, I doubt https can really stop them doing what they want, especially not the big ones.

> maybe national govts can each regulate their ISPs to stop injecting content into the bits they transmit?

Good one. Next you'll be telling me that those very same companies don't spend billions on getting the laws written the way they want.

Sure you could try the top down approach where everyone has the best intentions but that's not going to happen, in the meantime I'm installing bulletproof windows in my car.

That's a very narrow view of the options available for law enforcement. Sometimes "going after all the bad guys" is a terrible strategy.

Some Javascript, HTML or HTTP features are available on HTTPS only. Even things like Brotli stream compression which have no security implications. So some liberty is definitely taken from users who wish to use insecure connections for whatever reason.