> The article has now been reposted here, with an update in paragraph 14 to note that there’s no suggestion that bona fide students of the training centers were involved in hacking.
What is unfortunate? That the article was reposted? That a note was added to the article?
The latter.
Could you please elaborate for those of us without context?
Reuters was forced by a lawsuit to take down the post. They eventually got it posted again but not without a disclaimer on it.
I don't see what's wrong about the note. I don't see anything suggesting the note is inaccurate. I don't see anything that says the court forced Reuters to add the note. It appears Reuters added the note of their own free will.
It seems like they added it after they were harassed by the lawsuit.