> They're specifically and explicitly staking their credibility on the claim that the attribution is ultimately North Korea and not merely some entity possibly masquerading as North Korea.
That's a weak argument.
We live in a post-credibility world. Every major corporation, government and media giant has been caught lying on similar subjects and suffered no consequence.
The status quo is, Google can absolutely afford to lie to the public and expect it not to affect is bottom line even if it gets caught (or at least, affect its bottom line less than pissing off the US by pointing the finger at an allied country would).
(On the other hand, if it did cover up US allies that way, I'd expect whistleblowers to reveal it, and so far I don't think they have; so I dunno)
That's a weak argument.
We live in a post-credibility world. Every major corporation, government and media giant has been caught lying on similar subjects and suffered no consequence.
The status quo is, Google can absolutely afford to lie to the public and expect it not to affect is bottom line even if it gets caught (or at least, affect its bottom line less than pissing off the US by pointing the finger at an allied country would).
(On the other hand, if it did cover up US allies that way, I'd expect whistleblowers to reveal it, and so far I don't think they have; so I dunno)