[hker]

> is bitterwinter.org a reliable source?

The bitterwinter.org article, which is clearly labeled as Op-Ed:

1. reports that BCI Shanghai contradicts BCI headquarter (which you can independently verify, as there are other news sources supporting this, such as the SCMP article I just added).

2. argues that the local branch (BCI Shanghai) could be under pressure for operating in China (the quoted text above).

If you don’t buy their reasoning (2 above), you can at least agree with the HKFP reporting that the local Hugo Boss Chinese branch contradicted the Hugo Boss global headquarter without authorization, and make your judgement call for why.

> or perhaps we should dig deeper...

You may want to read these sources [1][2], which I just added to my original comment and do not rely on Adrian Zenz.

> is adrian zenz, whom most of the xinjiang genocide claims originated from, a reliable source?

With those other verifiable sources [1][2], we can ignore the straw man question of whether Adrian Zenz is a reliable source.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/solar-chin... "Solar industry’s ties to China’s Xinjiang region raise specter of forced labor"

[2]: https://www.shu.ac.uk/helena-kennedy-centre-international-ju... "In Broad Daylight: Uyghur Forced Labour and Global Solar Supply Chains"

[dirtyid]

Literally the first reference/citation of "Broad Daylight" is attributed to Zenz. The Washington post does no additional verification but attribute to "researchers" who will no doubt also quote Zenz. It's also Washington Post. There are no verifiable sources alleging coerced labour that doesn't trace back to Zenz. Bitterwinter or HKFP are also far from reliable, on par with Epochetimes bias.

>Hugo Boss Chinese branch contradicted the Hugo Boss global headquarter without authorization, and make your judgement call for why.

Global HQs making judgement calls due to coordinated pressure campaign from their primary markets, against the due diligence of their local branch who has on the ground experience. Make your judgement call for why.

[hker]

The “Broad Daylight” is an academic research, which necessarily cites related work or previous work, including of Zenz.

This is how academic research works. Citing Zenz per se does not make the the “Broad Daylight” less credible.

If people are against Zenz, please judge the “Broad Daylight” report by ignoring all reference to and evidence provided by Zenz.

If you find specific flaws with “Broad Daylight”, please list them so that we can discuss.

Saying that it cites Zenz is just pointing out how academic research works, and does not invalidate the report.

> Bitterwinter or HKFP are also far from reliable, on par with Epochetimes bias.

Bitterwinter is not used as a news source here, just an Op-Ed, because all needed reporting are supported by other news sources such as SCMP.

HKFP is just reporting what Hugo Boss headquarter and its Chinese branch are doing, with links to sources. You can follow the links to judge for yourself [1], or find alternative sources reporting the same [2]: Hugo Boss Chinese branch is making unauthorized Weibo post contradicting the Hugo Boss global headquarter.

So the local branch does not represent the headquarter [2], just like BCI Shanghai does not represent BCI headquarter (as reported by SCMP).

[1]: https://group.hugoboss.com/fileadmin/media/pdf/sustainabilit... "HUGO BOSS Statement on the Chinese region of Xinjiang"

[2]: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-xinjiang-hugo-boss-idI... "Chinese celebs, netizens slam 'two-faced' Hugo Boss over Xinjiang"

(And no, HKFP is more credible than Epochtimes, as [2] just validated the HKFP reporting, but this is a red herring for the current discussion.)

[dirtyid]

>Citing Zenz per se does not make the the “Broad Daylight” less credible.

Broad Daylight presumes Zenz conclusion of coerced labour as basis for rest of supply chain analysis. It can only be judged in that context, which makes it, and any research that use Zenz as starting point, less credible.>Citing Zenz per se does not make the the “Broad Daylight” less credible.

On par =/= equal. HKFP better than epochetimes, but not by much. The bias of Bitterwinter/HKFP is presuming PRC branches are going off script when acting "two faced" that gets "disavowed" by HQ is the kind of face saving behavior that multinationals do to stay in good graces of east and west. What Intel is doing here. Publishers like HKFP and Bitterwinter bias is characterizing typical corporate doublespeak as unique Chinese misbehavior.

[hker]

> any research that use Zenz as starting point...

A research could be inspired by Zenz, then went on to find independent evidence supporting the same conclusion (forced labor in Xinjiang).

Getting inspired by Zenz does not make subsequent research less credible.

You need to list specific flaws in the Broad Daylight report to discredit it.

> On par =/= equal. HKFP better than epochetimes, but not by much...

With the Reuters reporting [1] linked above which reports the same as HKFP, diverting the discussion on HKFP is a straw man.

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-xinjiang-hugo-boss-idI... "Chinese celebs, netizens slam 'two-faced' Hugo Boss over Xinjiang"

> The bias of Bitterwinter/HKFP is presuming PRC branches are going off script when acting "two faced" that gets "disavowed" by HQ...

The fact that the Chinese branch can go rogue against the global headquarter has been reported multiple times.

For an example in tech, see Arm China [2], where the damage to the headquarter is much larger than Hugo Boss or BCI.

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28329731 "Arm China Has Gone Rogue"