What do you consider “not informed” vs. “willfully ignorant”? Personally, I think that a billionaire, who could have afforded any reputable service (which does exist), and who could have hired experts to go over every miniscule detail of the mission was willfully ignorant. The CEO of the company, who was personally warned and knew all of the internal issues, was also willfully ignorant. If either of them thought this was equivalent to skydiving, or just though “fuck it”, that’s on them. Of course, if the company actively lied to them or hid information then that’s obviously a huge issue, but if they just said “yeah like, this tube is made of stuff from the junkyard and literally no regulatory body has OKd us” and they agreed with the resources and knowledge available to them, then they carry some responsibility.

I think the case of say, signing a waiver before you go ziplining is very different for a few reasons. Most people who go ziplining don’t have any expertise, and don’t have the financial resources to find out more about the activity or the company offering it. They’re essentially relying on what they’re being told, so it’s far more coercive to tell someone like that “yeah uhh, we’re mostly safe, here sign this”. Ziplining would also presumably have some regulation around it, so undisclosed risk would leave not only the provider, but also the regulatory body, and in a larger sense government and society morally culpable. Thirdly, I think in a legal sense you have to consider what an average reasonable citizen would have interpreted the risk to be, just like in other criminal cases. I think it’s fair to say that the average reasonable person would have understood the risk of a titanic mission to be far greater than that of ziplining, so the burden to convey risk is much higher in the ziplining case.