[walterstucco]

As much as I oppose to Uber philosophy, technology.and their work and HR policies (I even think it's dangerous for the future of mobility), I still think plausible is not enough for news to be news. It's merely enough for bar stories. I respect so much journalism that I don't want enough, I want facts, names, proofs and the smocking gun.

[laughinghan]

Do you also believe Hacker News comments should be held to the standards of journalism, and people on Hacker News shouldn't even discuss something unless there are facts, names, proofs, and the smoking gun?

No, reputable news sources shouldn't (and don't) publish claims like these without substantiation. But I don't see a problem with HN commenters discussing claims like these even though this is all we have to go on. And I don't see how that's an argument against its fundamental plausibility, which is what your parent comment discusses.