> Perhaps one of the downvoters can explain why the implied opinion "Nobody should be able to access your site without clearance from a third-party gatekeeper" belongs on a site called "Hacker News."

I didn't vote down, but ironically this is news to real hackers who will have a harder time doing mitm downgrade attacks once this is widespread.

I believe that web browsers should alert users if a website uses a less secure protocol than "nearly all" of the rest of the websites they visit, for some value of "nearly all".

It's not preventing the user from visiting, just saying "heads up, the assumptions you make about the websites you visit don't hold for this one."