Exactly the same thing? Are you taunting me with some kind of ignorance? Again, you've introduced ambiguity and we can't tell if you are referring to a protocol, or a port.

https has the special property of working on any port and didn't need to switch to 443. You could run https servers on port 80. Both of them are considered "privileged".

Plenty of http and https servers alike on unprivileged ports too. Ports 80 and 443 were more about exclusivity and well-known assignments, than trust.

The unique thing about HTTP the protocol is that it came to be implemented by practically everything, as in REST and web apps. It's an Internet lingua franca.

TELNET protocol was severely neglected, which is why I was surprised that MUDs kept it alive!

To sibling: A MUD character is not a user. A user is a user who logs into user accounts, e.g. shells. You could read it as "a host providing a service" to someone, I suppose, but again, in longstanding practice, 23/tcp was reserved to telnetd and other management/shell logins, not some kind of generic "interactive NVT anything goes" service. "Remote terminal access" was understood universally as like a console, or tty, that would invariably present a shell login, not Zork or Colossal Cave!