This is a pretty interesting concept. I think way this is described as “fewer rights” is not precise enough to pass muster. But I agree with the principle tha

This is a pretty interesting concept. I think way this is described as “fewer rights” is not precise enough to pass muster. But I agree with the principle that the harm to an individual resulting from a ban is proportional to its scale / reach. For example, getting banned from all McDonald’s restaurants is qualitatively different from getting banned from one McDonald’s restaurant. So how does one go about qualifying / quantifying (1) the potential risk or harm caused by an individual violating terms for service and (2) the harm caused to the individual resulting from corrective actions; and then balance the two against each other?