>TLS certificate errors are not something that should happen under normal circumstances. When a TLS certificate fails to validate, something is really wrong. As we've gotten better about ensuring those conditions, browsers have made it harder and harder to get past the warnings, because they're not warnings anymore -- they're error conditions.
Not paying Verisign your rent? That's an "error condition".
(Here of course referring to the choice of browser vendors to block access to web sites that offer secure end-to-end crypto via TLS, but merely haven't paid a browser-trusted CA to issue a new cert with a future expiration date.)
Would have been a fair statement a couple of years ago, but we live in a day when you can get free annual certs manually (Startssl) and free 90 day certs automatically (Letsencrypt).
The StartSSL CA is in the process of being blacklisted by major browser vendors because they issued a certificate for github.com to someone who clearly does not run github.com. [0]
LetsEncrypt just barely left beta (also this summer) and I'll admit that I haven't investigated it thoroughly, but it appears that some widespread devices are still incompatible (also consider the versions that accept LetsEncrypt; some of those are fairly recent, like CM 10). [1]
While some noble souls like LetsEncrypt have sought to remedy this rent-seeking behavior, it remains the fact that in most cases, a traditional CA is going to be required for a couple more years at least.
Not paying Verisign your rent? That's an "error condition".
(Here of course referring to the choice of browser vendors to block access to web sites that offer secure end-to-end crypto via TLS, but merely haven't paid a browser-trusted CA to issue a new cert with a future expiration date.)