The problem isn’t that anyone can sue anyone, the problem is that these laws give legal standing for anyone to sue anyone. Normal lawsuits have to pass a certain bar to establish legal standing, and if you don’t pass that bar your case gets thrown out. These laws essentially skip that part by giving blanket legal standing. I don’t know if that would stand up in a higher court, but it’s a dangerous precedent that they’re establishing.

I’ve been testing out Bluesky. Too early to give it a final rating, but it’s been cool (if relatively empty) so far.

It’s more accurate to say that the British prevented either themselves (through inaction) or China (by treaty/law) from having any practical control. If you’d bother to read the wiki article OP linked you’d know. China should have had jurisdication, but Britain techincally had (imperialist) jurisdication. The result was a no-man’s land until Britain finally gave up.

EDIT: missed a word

What the fuck are you talking about? In actual reality it was a product of capitalism. Specifically British imperialist capitalism in China. It took until the mid 80’s (40 years after the Communists came to power) for the British to allow China to have control over the area and it was turned in to a park less than a decade later, clearly indicating that the Communists were in no way interested in continuing the existence of the dystopian walled city.

Is there a Charlie Cinematic Universe now? lol

For real, who seriously had the thought “you know what, we need another adaptation of that one book from decades ago. We could try adapting some of that guy’s other work, but why bother? I know we tried the goofy, fun spin and the dark, gritty spin, but I’m sure we missed an angle on that one kid’s book.”

More importantly how did the guy who had that thought not get kicked out of the pitch meeting immediately?

That seems….unlikely.