Back in the day the cheerleaders were all for 8-track tapes and BetaMax.
BetaMax was substantially better as a recording/playback medium than VHS. Its failure was due to Sony's over-protection of its Patent (Sony wouldn't license Betamax for the rental market), not its suitability for the job-in-hand or anything the then cheerleaders said or failed to say.
The 8-track tape is another matter, but in any case 8-track tapes and Betamax were hardware-based technolgies that became obsolete through lack of users. Https isn't comparable, in that I don't know of any current mainstream hardware or software that doesn't support it, and don't know of any users in my own sector that are not using it. The advantage/disadvantage debate with the only other contender doesn't leave http with much on the scoreboard. Https is now free and simple to implement with many hosting contracts (and generally inexpensive and relatively easy otherwise), while delivering performance and security advantages over http. What does http do? Nothing that https doesn't: even a couple of milliseconds head start in latency is swept away by http 2.
The fact that a site's content has no direct security requirement doesn't make it or its users immune to MITM attacks. If you care whether your users see what is on your server then TLS is a no-brainer. OK, I give you IE5 (6, 7, 8..), but they never saw it correctly anyway.
Old technologies will die and new ones will replace them whatever the cheerleaders say, but end-to-end encryption (of which https is a device-to-server variant) has been around longer than any of the current hardware or software, and will be around for a long time yet.
What Gary Illyes says is a perfect Red Herring (how many real cases are there in which it will make any difference at all?). Don't let mistrust of Google put you off doing what is good for you anyway, or incline you to dissuade others from doing what is good for them.