Because looking for 'islands of truth' is basically the behaviour of conspiracy theorists: wade through mountains of evidence, ignoring everything to the contrary to find the few scraps which support their theory. You can't just ignore the huge numbers of things in this story which straight up don't add up. It would be great to have more credible examples of such compromises, but this ain't it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In trying to make rational decisions, it is foolish to pretend that one's own decisions (past, present, or future) are always (or even mostly) rational, let alone other people's.
Rather, most purportedly rational or logical decisions are instead rationalized ones, and it is rational to acknowledge this.
I'm not suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater, just awareness that as decision makers our ability to apply logic is limited (in economic terms 'bounded').
In fact, perhaps our limited ability to reason is best imagined as a baby: full of endless potential, yet weak and fragile, easily perturbed, and requiring near constant care, attention, even vigilance.
