6. HTTP/2 a.k.a. SPDY is a comically bloated Layer 5/6/7 mega-combo protocol designed to replace HTTP. It takes something simple and (most importantly!) comprehensible and debuggable for junior programmers and replaces it with an insanely over-complicated^7 system that requires tens of thousands of lines of code to implement the most minimal version of, but which slightly reduces page load time and server costs once you reach the point of doing millions of requests per second. I am filled with rage just thinking about how we took a fundamental part of the Internet, simple enough that anyone can implement an HTTP server, and replaced it with this garbage protocol pushed by big megacorps that doesn't solve any real problems but will completely cut out future generations from system programming for the web. &#8617;&#8617;

7. My favorite HTTP/2 interaction has been finding and reporting this bug in haproxy. The compression scheme in HTTP/2 is so shitty that the "compression table" in RFC 7541 S: Aa is just a list of the 61 most popular headers from Google properties. &#8617;

8. HTTP/3 is all the badness of HTTP/2, but run over a worse layer 4 protocol named QUIC that totally fucks up networking for everybody in order to get a tiny bit more optimization for Google. That's all it does. It makes the Internet strictly worse for everybody but slightly better for the hugest of huge web properties. Nobody out here in the real Internet gives the slightest shit about head-of-line blocking from TCP, and lots of people want TCP state-aware firewalls and load-balancers to work. &#8617;

"Nobody out here in the real Internet gives the slightest shit about head-of-line blocking from TCP, and lots of people want TCP state-aware firewalls and load-balancers to [continue to] work."

These protocols do not make it more difficult for advertisers or advertiser-funded companies like Google to serve ads and optimise serving ads, they make it easier. For example, they allow for faster and more efficient serving of third party resources, e.g., ads, and siphoning of user data without any affirmative interaction from the user, and cramming more data into more headers that are more difficult to monitor. As an end-user I aim to send the absolute minimum headers needed in the particular instance. 1-2 usually works. From an end-user perspective we should be trying to decrease headers not increase them. Websites should only collect the information they actually need, nothing more. That is not the sort of web envisioned by the "new" HTTP protocol advocates.

I actually use HTTP/1.1 pipelining with a user-agent I wrote myself and this original HTTP pipelining has worked great for me for over 20 years. I am not an advertiser or an ad-supported company; I am just an end-user retrieving text in bulk from the web. Thus in addition to state-aware firewalls and load-balancers, I want HTTP/1.1 pipelining to continue to work. The proponents of these protocols want their audience to believe HTTP/1.1 pipelining doesn't work or has serious problems. But that is only for their use case. In fact it does work for end users doing efficient bulk data retrieval without retrieving any ads or other cruft. But these Google-sponsored protocols are not written for end-users wanting to avoid ads. Those are not Google's customers.