Long on indignation, shortish on facts
The fine article does not - as far as I could see - mention a couple of rather important facts.
1. Were users actually prevented from connecting to Google, etc.? Or did they manage to connect and use the sites normally - just by a circuitous route?
2. The article speaks of "theft" and suggests that packets were "stolen". Again, that implies that the packets were never delivered to the intended destinations. True or false?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
