"exclude people who use non up-to-date web browsers and operating systems because they put themselves and others to severe risks." - Thierry
I know near nothing about internet / browser technology-
I did not know that an out-of-date browser could actually pose a threat - I can see that supporting the old browser could pose a burden... But a threat? (added-> I can see that supporting ancient browsers could pose a threat to a site - but can an unsupported browser visiting a site cause a threat?)
IMO, if the browser cannot pose a threat, and if the user is happy with limitations / possible malfunction of their browser as a result of visiting sites which dont support their browser, that should be their choice.
I completely agree that a site owner cannot be expected to support every ancient browser, that it is their prerogative and evaluation of cost / time / benefit which should determine which they support.(added-> In fact, I feel that they have full right to choose whatever browser they support without need for any justification)
If the browser can actually be a threat (to other internet users) , that's of course a different matter.
One thing I am mindful of is that we are extremely affluent by comparison to many on this planet who use the internet - There are millions for whom paying to upgrade from say Win XP to a later version which supports a later browser, is not an option.. Also, many of these will require a new PC in order to facilitate the upgrade..
Unless there is real risk to others, I think that deliberately barring people from site access based on their browser would be something like barring entry because one doesn't wear a tie - it would be debilitating to many who actually need access to the internet on their ancient PCs (many of which are salvage and donated by charities) for essential education and global 'participation'.
Fred.