[sangnoir]

Well, I'm glad that we can at least agree that the US has protectionist policies and has had them for a long time.

If you want a bigger protected industry, perhaps checkout any Farm bill from the past several decades. But that's neither here nor there. China is not weird for having protectionist measures - like you said - it's pretty normal - the scope and size is what may be unusual for a country that's not a hegemon.

> What does this have to do with Akamai, and many other American companies, ending services in mainland China?

Glad you asked: China has protectionist policies that are designed to help its domestic tech companies. Consequently, foreign (read American) tech companies like Akamai may find the operating environment much more challenging that they would without those policies. Other non-protectionist policies don't help - such as working with the great firewall, or complying with censorship requests.

TL;DR version: China protects its tech industry like the US protects its farmers and merchant marine. Acknowledging that will help frame whether the respective countries have the political appetite to temp or undo those policies.

[dgfitz]

> Acknowledging that will help frame whether the respective countries have the political appetite to temp or undo those policies.

What does framing matter? Things are going to happen, trying to “frame” them is why journalism is miserable.

[sangnoir]

What journalism? I'm talking about how we frame the discussion on HN in threads like this one.

[dgfitz]

Same point. Framing = “think about things this way” instead of just pointing out facts and letting people decide what they will.

Why do you think the president-elect is who they are? People don’t like whatever “framing” is supposed to be.

[lmm]

> Why do you think the president-elect is who they are? People don’t like whatever “framing” is supposed to be.

Isn't it the opposite? People see the same facts but framed in different ways, and so take away very different interpretations.

[dgfitz]

People see “framed” facts hammed down their gullet for so long, accept this, be ok with that, this is the new normal even if it’s only “because we say so”, that when an other option is presented, and one isn’t ordered to “accept this because…” it resonates.

Surely you realize this.

[sangnoir]

I hope you appreciate the irony of your white-hot rage against framing, and the contrast of you saying:

> this is the new normal even if it’s only “because we say so”, that when an other option is presented, and one isn’t ordered to “accept this because…” it resonates.

> Surely you realize this.

Why aren't you just stating the facts and letting parent decide? I don't think you are against providing relevant context (i.e. "framing"), you just have a bee in a bonnet about ... something - journalism as practiced today perhaps, but that has very little to to with the topic at thr root if the thread - until you reframed the discussion to be about journalism.