Hacker News Reader

Comment by mapgrep | Hacker News Reader

>all reports about "Google returning to China" are based solely on the "Intercept report"[1] as source

False. There has been a lot of independent reporting on this (even if credits Intercept for getting it first, and yes I work there).

NYT confirmed based on "two people with knowledge of the plans." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-c...

WSJ confirmed based on "a person familiar with the matter." https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-considering-censored-sea...

Reuters confirmed with "two sources said." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-google/google-plans...

VICE confirmed with "a source inside the company." https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9kmdm8/google-china-cens...

View on HN

well, it's good to know the same two people are verified again and again. I do really appreciate those links.

Are there any further development besides the initial "Intercept report" details?

My best guess is that Google China somehow partnered with a major Android ROM developer in China to provide a search component in Android system, some kind of integration with "Custom Search API".

It's nothing like the full search experience is returning to China, but technically it's based on the same google search infrastructure.

It’s odd that you’re willing to so vehemently question sourced reporting, while simultaneously postulating, without any evidence, that a very narrow, favorable to Google scenario is likely to be the case.

Those newer sourced reporting adds the "media credibility", reduced the noise, but did not increase signal. Thus multiple sources equals one source to me. Source is not some kind of score that can be accumulated, if you believe source quantity than quality then you are fallen into the power user trap.

I like to analyze the structure & dynamic of a topic, not the number of "sources".

Forgive us if we completely disregard anonymous sources. This sort of "reporting" is not based on any kind evidence or actual investigation. It is pure gossip.

At this point we know only that there are people inside Google who are, for various reasons, leaking information to the press. We have no direct quotes from these anonymous sources nor any information about who they might be. For all we know they could be janitors.

What's so funny is that I remember the days when Greenwald used to rage daily against the media for using anonymous sources. Now this has become the primary type of "reporting" that the Intercept trucks in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com