[buran77]

Not referring to this case in particular, barring someone from ever using a service which may not have a decent or equivalent replacement always seems like an abuse especially when we're not talking about something criminal on a certain scale. Fine the person, increase the fine for every subsequent incident cause by the person, have them pay damages in court. The imbalance caused by these rules being applied one sided by a company in a strong position of power against an individual with no power whatsoever is not healthy.

And the imbalance of power is core here. Boeing resolved the criminal charge related to the 737 MAX scandal by paying $2.5bn. The CEO isn't on a "no freedom list" despite his actions leading to the deaths of 346 people. The CEOs f airlines operating the 737 MAX who were informed by the pilots of the dangers but did not cease flying that plane, endangering tens of thousands. What kind of list should that land them on but didn't?

If you do something on the internet that endangers someone's safety do you go on a national "no internet" list? If you cause an accident on a public road do you go on a "no car/no access to public roads" list?