Hearsay literally is evidence. It's usually not allowed in court, because it can't be verified, though there are several exceptions. Regardless, it not being allowed doesn't make it not evidence. It's only because it isn't reliable.

Here's how when hearsay evidence is allowed, or not allowed, in the US.

Here's when hearsay evidence is allowed in China.

Both of them it's essentially based on if the person that supposedly made the statement can be presented in court. If they can't, hearsay is the best alternative and is therefore allowed. It's evidence regardless, but they'd rather have it directly from the source if they can.

Anyway, this is all when hearsay evidence is allowed in a court of law. We are not in a court of law. There's no rules when hearsay evidence is allowed to be presented on the internet. Each person just has to decide for themselves what they think about it, and you've decided it doesn't reach your standard.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about though. The US department of state said "Genocide and crimes against humanity occurred during the year in China against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang." (Literally the first paragraph of the report.)

The UN report doesn't say it isn't genocide. It doesn't make a claim on genocide. It just lists the human rights violations that it has found, which are re-education caps, and things like that. When the US and Canada did the same to the native people, that was genocide. It's the same for China. The definition of genocide is: "The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group." Trying to eliminate a religious or cultural group, through killing or re-education, is genocide.