If there was a small statue erected of a little boy with a Superman outfit on, most people who saw it would think “look at that statue of Superboy.” That doesn’t pay tribute to Jeffrey. That makes the story about something it’s not and for that reason alone, I can understand the decision that was made by DC Entertainment.
Even the artist and the gentleman who commissioned the statue, Ottawa resident Todd Boyce, seem to understand this, commenting “To be fair to DC, I don’t think they wanted to say no. I think they gave it serious thought.”
But what I see all over the internet, especially in the comics “media,” are stories and click-bait headlines that vilify DC with only a paragraph’s mention of Jeffrey.
If we follow the US' example, this is perfectly reasonable. Given that the US thinks its laws are valid world wide, it comes to reason that all of the worlds laws are valid in the US. Anything else is hypocritical, right?
By that reasoning, Quinn has probably broken a criminal law _somewhere_, and given how the US is the first to demand extradition, I take it he will be put on the first plane to Switzerland by US officials? No?
I'm not so sure this has much to do with net neutrality at all. A, few sites are reporting on the Google-Orange deal as a regular peering agreement, where Google pays for a direct connection to the Orange networks. Unless the contract says anything about QOS for Google traffic, this isn't really anything about net neut.
I would say this *is* unprecedented levels of transparency.
You actually have a leaked copy of a draft. That's a lot more than you usually get. Normally, you don't hear about treaties like this until they're made into law.