4 ms·

I generally believe that the default reaction to a news story should be "it might be true, it might not". The ratio depends on the claim and the evidence. This

I generally believe that the default reaction to a news story should be "it might be true, it might not". The ratio depends on the claim and the evidence. This is an extraordinary claim with mediocre-to-weak evidence, so I'm on the "unlikely to be true" side, but it's hardly an impossible story. The story is essentially that there was a breakthrough in an effort that everyone in the world is pursuing (hardware supply chain attacks) and then everyone involved behaved as you'd expect them to behave (secretive at first and then defensively once the secret was out). While I don't expect people to believe it, I do expect some evidence if you're going to call it bullshit.

otterley 7y ago
You’re needlessly nitpicking. The more fantastic the story, the greater the burden of proof needed to sustain it. It’s never been the public’s burden to disprove a story that no one has ever heard before. And at this point, enough time has passed since the story broke without any evidence being put forth that it’s reasonable for people to think that yes, in fact, the story is likely bullshit.
- solidasparagus 7y ago
  It is reasonable to think that the story is likely bullshit. It is not, IMO, reasonable to go from that to claiming that it has ruined the credibility of the reporting organization and that you should presume all stories from them are likely false. To come to that conclusion, I believe you need some proof that the reporting was incorrect, not a lack of proof that the story was correct. When we are talking about national security, the consequences of sources being identified are so high that it is not surprising that Bloomberg is unwilling to provide primary sources.
  - otterley 7y ago
    Trust is the currency of journalism. When journalists make fantastic claims that turn out to be false, it tarnishes the credibility both of themselves and the enterprises that sponsor them and publish their work. I don't think anyone is actually saying that everything Bloomberg publishes is suspect without exception (the quote above notwithstanding). Nobody would question, based on previous history, a Bloomberg story claiming water is still wet. Where they do lack credibility now are stories claiming bombshells relating to technology companies. In this instance we have both Alex Stamos, who knows a lot of inside information and is a well-regarded security expert, and the head of WhatsApp itself both denying the claims. And any time a company or one of its high level representatives makes a material statement of fact, investors are going to pay close attention. If they prove to be wrong, an army of shareholders' attorneys are going to march to court to extract a pound of flesh. If there were even a shred of possibility that these stories were true, these folks -- as well as the leaders at Amazon and Apple implicated in the earlier stories -- would clam up instead of going on the record unambiguously denying the stories.
    - solidasparagus 7y ago
      But this hasn't "turned out to be false". It's unconfirmed and thus very suspicious. This is an article about an attack so advanced it's generally considered impossible, using the most valuable attack vector in the most important battlefield (see DNI Maguire's hearing answer to the biggest threat facing America) between the world's two superpowers. Would it really be that shocking if, after an initial leak, the US government was able to shut down leaks? You make good points, particularly around the public denials, and I don't want to debate this any further (I was mostly railing against that ridiculous quote), but I think people are being pretty quick to claim this report is false rather than probably false. 130,000 people worked on the atomic bomb for 6 years in secret - when it comes to matters the government considers crucial to national security (and cutting edge breakthroughs in cyber warfare would certainly qualify), silence can be kept.
      - zepto 7y ago
        You are missing the point. Bloomberg has provided no evidence at all that it is true. A report that is not supported by any evidence is not just ‘unconfirmed’. It is bullshit plain and simple.

otterley 7y ago

You’re needlessly nitpicking. The more fantastic the story, the greater the burden of proof needed to sustain it. It’s never been the public’s burden to disprove a story that no one has ever heard before. And at this point, enough time has passed since the story broke without any evidence being put forth that it’s reasonable for people to think that yes, in fact, the story is likely bullshit.

solidasparagus 7y ago
It is reasonable to think that the story is likely bullshit. It is not, IMO, reasonable to go from that to claiming that it has ruined the credibility of the reporting organization and that you should presume all stories from them are likely false. To come to that conclusion, I believe you need some proof that the reporting was incorrect, not a lack of proof that the story was correct. When we are talking about national security, the consequences of sources being identified are so high that it is not surprising that Bloomberg is unwilling to provide primary sources.
- otterley 7y ago
  Trust is the currency of journalism. When journalists make fantastic claims that turn out to be false, it tarnishes the credibility both of themselves and the enterprises that sponsor them and publish their work. I don't think anyone is actually saying that everything Bloomberg publishes is suspect without exception (the quote above notwithstanding). Nobody would question, based on previous history, a Bloomberg story claiming water is still wet. Where they do lack credibility now are stories claiming bombshells relating to technology companies. In this instance we have both Alex Stamos, who knows a lot of inside information and is a well-regarded security expert, and the head of WhatsApp itself both denying the claims. And any time a company or one of its high level representatives makes a material statement of fact, investors are going to pay close attention. If they prove to be wrong, an army of shareholders' attorneys are going to march to court to extract a pound of flesh. If there were even a shred of possibility that these stories were true, these folks -- as well as the leaders at Amazon and Apple implicated in the earlier stories -- would clam up instead of going on the record unambiguously denying the stories.
  - solidasparagus 7y ago
    But this hasn't "turned out to be false". It's unconfirmed and thus very suspicious. This is an article about an attack so advanced it's generally considered impossible, using the most valuable attack vector in the most important battlefield (see DNI Maguire's hearing answer to the biggest threat facing America) between the world's two superpowers. Would it really be that shocking if, after an initial leak, the US government was able to shut down leaks? You make good points, particularly around the public denials, and I don't want to debate this any further (I was mostly railing against that ridiculous quote), but I think people are being pretty quick to claim this report is false rather than probably false. 130,000 people worked on the atomic bomb for 6 years in secret - when it comes to matters the government considers crucial to national security (and cutting edge breakthroughs in cyber warfare would certainly qualify), silence can be kept.
    - zepto 7y ago
      You are missing the point. Bloomberg has provided no evidence at all that it is true. A report that is not supported by any evidence is not just ‘unconfirmed’. It is bullshit plain and simple.