23 ms·

You don't know how Bloomberg obtained their evidence, and unlike conspiracy theorists who lose nothing to spread their misinformation, Bloomberg stakes their re

You don't know how Bloomberg obtained their evidence, and unlike conspiracy theorists who lose nothing to spread their misinformation, Bloomberg stakes their reputation, and business, on the credibility of their stories. Incorrect details is one thing. Falsified story in such sensitive matter is another thing. Especially now that they've doubled down on it. > You can't just ignore the huge numbers of things in this story which straight up don't add up The rebukes can boil down to: a) companies involved denied it; b) nobody else confirmed it; c) the picture in the story didn't seem to be legit. Perhaps I miss other rebukes, as I didn't follow it very closely, but none of the above is convincing enough to dismiss the original story.

ghaff 6y ago
The whole thing is strange. Despite what various tech commentators may think, Bloomberg is a legit media organization which doesn't make major accusations casually. Doesn't mean they don't screw up from time to time. But it's at least "interesting" that they not only didn't back down but they doubled down on this story. This story would not have run if editors weren't convinced it was substantially true for whatever reason.
- ezconnect 6y ago
  Bloomberg sells news, it's how they make money. They don't need to tell the truth all the time.
sudosysgen 6y ago
More reputable organizations than Bloomberg made bigger claims that turned out to be false. Remember WMDs and the Nasrallah testimony? What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no evidence here. And it's not even a case of not being able to produce it, you could literally just get your hands on a compromised board and x-ray it. People do that all the time.
refenestrator 6y ago
The strongest hypothetical case for this story is that some NSA/CIA people told them on deep background that it's definitely happening, Bloomberg went out to try for parallel construction that proves it, and epically owned themselves with poor execution. Falling back on "you can't prove it isn't happening" is a really weak defense. If they have stronger evidence, they should either present it or stop talking about it.
zepto 6y ago
> You don't know how Bloomberg obtained their evidence Not do we even know what their evidence actually is. All we are left with is ‘trust bloomberg’.

ghaff 6y ago

The whole thing is strange. Despite what various tech commentators may think, Bloomberg is a legit media organization which doesn't make major accusations casually. Doesn't mean they don't screw up from time to time. But it's at least "interesting" that they not only didn't back down but they doubled down on this story. This story would not have run if editors weren't convinced it was substantially true for whatever reason.

ezconnect 6y ago
Bloomberg sells news, it's how they make money. They don't need to tell the truth all the time.

sudosysgen 6y ago

More reputable organizations than Bloomberg made bigger claims that turned out to be false. Remember WMDs and the Nasrallah testimony? What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no evidence here. And it's not even a case of not being able to produce it, you could literally just get your hands on a compromised board and x-ray it. People do that all the time.

refenestrator 6y ago

The strongest hypothetical case for this story is that some NSA/CIA people told them on deep background that it's definitely happening, Bloomberg went out to try for parallel construction that proves it, and epically owned themselves with poor execution. Falling back on "you can't prove it isn't happening" is a really weak defense. If they have stronger evidence, they should either present it or stop talking about it.

zepto 6y ago

> You don't know how Bloomberg obtained their evidence Not do we even know what their evidence actually is. All we are left with is ‘trust bloomberg’.