Two thoughts: Russia has already offered Edward Snowden asylum. And we don't have independent confirmation that he's on that flight that lands in about 4 hours; we have just the SCMP report, and the destination isn't mentioned in the HK government statement. I wouldn't be surprised if some if it were misinformation.
While I like your friendly answer, I would really prefer sources to be mentioned alongside statements in HN discussions.
Saying "just google it if you do not believe me" places the burden of verification on the reader, whereas it should be the author's duty to ease such verification.
When I find 'Source: guardian.co.uk/...' in a discussion, this gives me the warm, fuzzy feeling of being able to easily verify your claims - even if I do trust you.
I agree that some people may want to see more evidence than others.
Of course, there is no clear boundary between "obvious" and "needs proof".
However, I found that most people are quite able to judge whether it would be helpful to include a source for a statement.
I think that within most discoursive communities there is an implicit consensus on when a statement needs an explanation or a supporting source for it to be accepted [1].
Regarding the author's "duty": Maybe I should have called it 'courtesy' instead.
On the other hand, if I am not completely mistaken, HN was intended as a forum for constructive and thoughtful low-noise discussions.
As I want to profit from these discussions, I personally see it as my duty to make my comments as helpful as possible.
I would argue that including source for statements more often is beneficial to a discussion than not.
Therefore, I prefer to see sources.
[1] sorry, no source but my own experience as a member of some scientific communities and online forums.
