5 ms·

We are reading a lot about Huawei lately and it almost all seems to boil down to how "evil" their business practices are. Is this WSJ in the Overton window spin

We are reading a lot about Huawei lately and it almost all seems to boil down to how "evil" their business practices are. Is this WSJ in the Overton window spinning a manufactured consent?

Theodores 7y ago
Did you read the comments for the article? This has the width of the Overton Window laid bare for you. The consent has already been manufactured! Nobody dare cross the line and say how cool they are with Huawei products. We have short memories, not so recently the Koreans were the ones doing all the IP theft, but nowadays Samsung is legit. Or you can go further back to when everything except and IBM PC (or Apple) was a clone. Going further back, in the world of automotive, when a special product comes out, e.g. the MINI in the UK, the first thing Ford does is to buy one and take it to pieces, cost the whole package and work out how it is done. There are places I have worked where there have been cupboards full of rival products, tested to destruction. It is called research. What is quite interesting with the narrative is that Huawei have got there in the execution of 5G and they are allegedly ahead. Imagine if Huawei got to setup a colony on Mars first, we could complain that they stole Elon Musk's ideas and throw toys out of prams, to ignore accomplishments and execution. Clearly the Overton Window is defined on this, and woe betide anyone that ignores it. So how does one avoid flamewar? Humour always helps. IS there any original IP in this WSJ article? Is it actually novel? Have they stolen content from other articles? Have they nicked content from the Washington Post? Their Huawei trolling is far from investigative journalism.
- jcims 7y ago
  I just have a meta question. Was there a recent article or something that brought the term 'Overton window' into common use? I did a little digging and it seems like it's been a term for a few decades, but I don't recall ever seeing it before this year. Now I see it used all the time.
  - chvid 7y ago
    The TV Show "Billions".
    - jcims 7y ago
      That’s definitely it, timing is dead on. Thanks!
      - Bootvis 7y ago
        It was commonly used on Slashdot before (where I learned the concept).
        jcims 7y ago
        Interesting. Used to love slashdot, have an account at the bottom end of the five digit range, but i cant do it any more.
  - newen 7y ago
    I've seen it used in the internet for a few years now. Maybe there is a recent surge but people do use it relatively often when discussing politics.
  - liability 7y ago
    More likely hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader–Meinhof_effec https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader–Meinhof_effec I learned about this years ago, so I've not noticed a recent uptick in usage, but when I learned about it I did.
  - messick 7y ago
    Because it helps explain why events that would have ended any previous US Presidential administration can happen multiple times a day, but not even move the needle in the public discourse. Obama saluted a Marine with a Starbucks cup in his hand and it was national news. Trump sided with a murderous dictator against a former Vice President yesterday, and nothing. Anyone who pays attention to American politics lately has been experienced the Overton Window shifting a lot.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > Going further back, in the world of automotive, when a special product comes out, e.g. the MINI in the UK, the first thing Ford does is to buy one and take it to pieces, cost the whole package and work out how it is done. Everyone does this, here's an article from 2006 detailing this: https://www.wired.com/2006/02/teardown/ https://www.wired.com/2006/02/teardown/ The point is, this kind of behavior - taking a stock product and disassembling it to its pieces - is not theft. The real theft that mainly originates from China (no matter if via the "legal" route of buying up Western companies or force "technology transfer" via joint ventures or via hacking) that does real damage is stealing the know-how in manufacturing which the original manufacturer has spent most of the R&D budget for. I can go ahead, do a 360° photography of my toaster and its innards, but will I be able to construct one of my own based on this? Probably not, as I will need to figure out lots of stuff that are not visible/measurable in the final product: temperature/cooling cycles for plastic and metals, the precise construction for the injection molds that does not leave me with uneven colors in the plastic, ... Same is valid for automotive parts or aeronautic/astronautic parts. Sure, I can buy a SpaceX engine and take it apart - but that won't help me to get the precise 3D print pattern they use for their chamber.
  - chvid 7y ago
    > The real theft that mainly originates from China (no matter if via the "legal" route of buying up Western companies or force "technology transfer" via joint ventures or via hacking) Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture?
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      > Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture? Joint ventures are compulsory. What China does is extorting market access. As for buying: Systematically undermining them by price-dumping and then buying up the carcasses isn't exactly fine business practices either. China is definitely going to be the enemy of the next 20-30 years, pitting a ruthless dictatorship against whatever freedom and democracy will be left in the Western world.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Call me suspicious, but there's a very common theme and phrasing in a lot of those comments. Manufacturing consent? You may very well think that. The Indians and others were buying British looms and disassembling them way back. Standard practice seems to be buy a few extra to rip apart and understand. The cliche has it: We don't learn from history.

We are reading a lot about Huawei lately and it almost all seems to boil down to how "evil" their business practices are. Is this WSJ in the Overton window spinning a manufactured consent?

Theodores 7y ago

Did you read the comments for the article? This has the width of the Overton Window laid bare for you. The consent has already been manufactured! Nobody dare cross the line and say how cool they are with Huawei products. We have short memories, not so recently the Koreans were the ones doing all the IP theft, but nowadays Samsung is legit. Or you can go further back to when everything except and IBM PC (or Apple) was a clone. Going further back, in the world of automotive, when a special product comes out, e.g. the MINI in the UK, the first thing Ford does is to buy one and take it to pieces, cost the whole package and work out how it is done. There are places I have worked where there have been cupboards full of rival products, tested to destruction. It is called research. What is quite interesting with the narrative is that Huawei have got there in the execution of 5G and they are allegedly ahead. Imagine if Huawei got to setup a colony on Mars first, we could complain that they stole Elon Musk's ideas and throw toys out of prams, to ignore accomplishments and execution. Clearly the Overton Window is defined on this, and woe betide anyone that ignores it. So how does one avoid flamewar? Humour always helps. IS there any original IP in this WSJ article? Is it actually novel? Have they stolen content from other articles? Have they nicked content from the Washington Post? Their Huawei trolling is far from investigative journalism.

jcims 7y ago
I just have a meta question. Was there a recent article or something that brought the term 'Overton window' into common use? I did a little digging and it seems like it's been a term for a few decades, but I don't recall ever seeing it before this year. Now I see it used all the time.
- chvid 7y ago
  The TV Show "Billions".
  - jcims 7y ago
    That’s definitely it, timing is dead on. Thanks!
    - Bootvis 7y ago
      It was commonly used on Slashdot before (where I learned the concept).
      - jcims 7y ago
        Interesting. Used to love slashdot, have an account at the bottom end of the five digit range, but i cant do it any more.
- newen 7y ago
  I've seen it used in the internet for a few years now. Maybe there is a recent surge but people do use it relatively often when discussing politics.
- liability 7y ago
  More likely hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader–Meinhof_effec https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader–Meinhof_effec I learned about this years ago, so I've not noticed a recent uptick in usage, but when I learned about it I did.
- messick 7y ago
  Because it helps explain why events that would have ended any previous US Presidential administration can happen multiple times a day, but not even move the needle in the public discourse. Obama saluted a Marine with a Starbucks cup in his hand and it was national news. Trump sided with a murderous dictator against a former Vice President yesterday, and nothing. Anyone who pays attention to American politics lately has been experienced the Overton Window shifting a lot.
mschuster91 7y ago
> Going further back, in the world of automotive, when a special product comes out, e.g. the MINI in the UK, the first thing Ford does is to buy one and take it to pieces, cost the whole package and work out how it is done. Everyone does this, here's an article from 2006 detailing this: https://www.wired.com/2006/02/teardown/ https://www.wired.com/2006/02/teardown/ The point is, this kind of behavior - taking a stock product and disassembling it to its pieces - is not theft. The real theft that mainly originates from China (no matter if via the "legal" route of buying up Western companies or force "technology transfer" via joint ventures or via hacking) that does real damage is stealing the know-how in manufacturing which the original manufacturer has spent most of the R&D budget for. I can go ahead, do a 360° photography of my toaster and its innards, but will I be able to construct one of my own based on this? Probably not, as I will need to figure out lots of stuff that are not visible/measurable in the final product: temperature/cooling cycles for plastic and metals, the precise construction for the injection molds that does not leave me with uneven colors in the plastic, ... Same is valid for automotive parts or aeronautic/astronautic parts. Sure, I can buy a SpaceX engine and take it apart - but that won't help me to get the precise 3D print pattern they use for their chamber.
- chvid 7y ago
  > The real theft that mainly originates from China (no matter if via the "legal" route of buying up Western companies or force "technology transfer" via joint ventures or via hacking) Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture?
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    > Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture? Joint ventures are compulsory. What China does is extorting market access. As for buying: Systematically undermining them by price-dumping and then buying up the carcasses isn't exactly fine business practices either. China is definitely going to be the enemy of the next 20-30 years, pitting a ruthless dictatorship against whatever freedom and democracy will be left in the Western world.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Call me suspicious, but there's a very common theme and phrasing in a lot of those comments. Manufacturing consent? You may very well think that. The Indians and others were buying British looms and disassembling them way back. Standard practice seems to be buy a few extra to rip apart and understand. The cliche has it: We don't learn from history.