My mom uses Secure Boot with Windows and doesn't know or care that it's enabled at all.
What's happening the article is what has already happened on mobile: it requires vendor signing to run anything on mobile OS and the vendor locks out 3rd party drivers from their OS entirely.
It's yet another step towards desktop computing converging with mobile when it comes to software/firmware/boot/etc integrity attestation, app distribution and signing, and the ability to use your own bootloader and system drivers. When Secure Boot was first rolled out on laptops, it was used by Microsoft to lock the user out of the boot process before it was adapted to let users register their own keys, it can always be used for its original purpose, and how it's currently used on mobile, again.
Same problem with age gating. It's fine, as long as zero additional demands are placed upon users.
We shouldn’t need the hassle of locks on our home and car doors, but we understand they are probably worthwhile for most people.
What's the likelihood that this account ban provides zero security benefit to users and was instead a requirement from the gov because Veracrypt was too hard to crack/bypass.
Users who don’t care about the runtime integrity of their machine can just turn it off.
Both options are so easy that you could’ve learned how to do them on your machine in the time that you spent posting misinformation in this thread.
