You have a point that being mistaken is different from being hostile or anti, but we do call people "anti-vaccine" when they are just mistaken and as a result genuinely worried about vaccine. I think one should interpret "anti-China" the same way.
"More than 96% of respondents to the latest Wall Street Journal survey of 64 economists–not all of whom answered every question–said China’s gross-domestic-product estimates don’t accurately reflect the state of the world’s second-biggest economy.
“Official data are manufactured to fit the government’s narrative,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities."
Even in the much freer US, there are examples of (subtle) information manipulation. Such as releasing numbers that don't fit the government narrative :
- on a Friday afternoon (when all journalists are driving home or drinking at a bar)
- on page 95 of a 96-page report
That's quite odd, I notice the opposite. I notice many pro China pieces here on hackernews. Whether it's talking about their green energy, growing economy, financial markets or what have you.
Perhaps you've fallen victim to what's known as hostile media effect? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect)
It says that you tend to notice more negative media & chatter about something you care about or have an interest in, regardless of reality.
And I think this might actually be the case here because the original commentor above wasn't "anti-China" at all. He was stating a contrary viewpoint. Being realistic doesn't mean something is automatically "anti". If there was an article about the U.S middle class growing this year, and someone posted a comment which disputed that, it wouldn't be an "Anti-American" comment.
Speaking of, I see more "what's with the anti-China comments?" more than I notice actual anti-China comments. In fact, I almost never see truly anti-China comments.