[EdwardCoffin]

The burden of proof is on Bloomberg to show that the article has basis in fact, not the other way around.

It is relevant to the OP because it gives an idea of how reliable other articles from the same source might be.

> with a strong track record.

This is what they are disputing.

[gamblor956]

Bloomberg cited their evidence. In contrast, none of the companies in the report have issued a convincing denial based on evidence. Moreover, this week at least one of those companies gave in to China's demands on censorship and it's clear that any prior rebuttal was instigated by the Chinese government as a condition of continuing business in China.

[mikhailt]

Source of the said citation/evidence?

The burden is on Bloomberg to provide evidence. They didn’t mention this as a rumor or opinion but acted as if they have evidence proving their statements.

In fact, the person they used for their article later said that he was misquoted and even he didn’t believe it is the case: (Source: https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/)

Nobody found any evidence in any actual shipping hardware to prove any thing that Bloomberg has said.

As the result, nobody should trust anything Bloomberg says because they are basically making stuff up with no actual proof.

[manicdee]

Bloomberg made up graphics to illustrate a point. There was no evidence in their article.

There was a lot of fear I gearing about what might be possible, no evidence of it actually being done.

A more terrifying possibility than “Bloomberg made it all up” is that the hack is so big and deep that anyone with access to the evidence is already on the take and deliberately hiding it.