> and eventually kill that

No such bill is killed "for good" as long as the people who proposed it are still in power and the protesters know that.

> Many protesters are now actively attacking police force even if unprovoked.

If true this is very regrettable, but once you go up against the institution which has the monopoly of using violence what other realistic means are there? Afaik they did try the non-violent way a couple of years back but those protests gave no concrete results and their leaders were eventually arrested nonetheless.

> Hong Kong, at least on paper, is ruled by a governing entity elected by Hong Kong people

Except it's not, top leadership is elected by a small council of business owners and other high ranking members of society, the people they are allowed to vote for are selected by Beijing and anyone they don't like is vetoed out.

Also, half of the Legislative Council are elected by "functional constituency" including even agriculture and fishery. These constituencies are largely pro-establishment and anti-democratic.

And in the last election, the government was able to even disqualify candidates from the general election.

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/10/12/breaking-hong-kong-ban...

The pictures we're seeing is of cops beating, rubber-shooting and tear-gassing protesters in tight spaces without obvious provocation.

Here are videos of protestors beating cops and other innocent bystanders,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd1nW7Oa3mc

The video looks consistent with that I've heard reported elsewhere: Protestors are not attacking people, only symbols of the Chinese government. The violence that has been perpetrated has been directed towards the protestors, e.g. the knife attack on a protestor, the fireworks shot at protestors (seen in the video) and various excesses of the police.

Every story has two sides and things on the other side - police officers bitten to bleed or eyes flashed by high power laser pointers. The sad thing is, we gotta take whatever the media feeds us:)

HKers are protesting because (for historical and economical reasons) they have been blessed by an incredible fortune, a fortune that's shaming away.

We could talk about reasons and sides, but that's misleading and unproductive. The sad reality is that China is a "Unitary one-party socialist republic", a bad euphemism for an undemocratic country ruled by a single dictatorial party.

There's a lot of misinformation surrounding the violence of protesters, but let's not forget that these officers are protecting the interests of a regime.

Claims without citations, 5 day old account, comment history shows user is from china: not sure if I'd trust the comment.

Please follow HN guidelines and refrain from personal attack. Assume good faith and be substantive.

Honest question: what should communities do with the rise of nationalist “shill” accounts? The hard part is, it’s impossible to tell the difference between someone who’s merely a nationalist and someone who’s bought and paid for to post what amounts to propaganda, muddying the waters of discussion online. Extremely difficult problem to solve. Assuming good faith gets harder and harder as more information comes out about these “comment farms”, at times.

We have to assume good faith precisely because it's impossible to tell the difference you mentioned. If a real propagandist tells a lie, we can refute it with facts and flag the comment. But if a honest user is labelled as 'paid troll', it's almost impossible for the honest user to prove himself. And that severely poisons the discussion.

What wasn't substantive about the GP's post? It was factual to a fault.

Being substantive means replying to the actual argument instead of questioning the credibility of the person who makes an argument.

The OP started without substance while trying to smear HKers fighting for their freedom from the authoritarian CCP so why attack the person who highlights the suspicious nature of the accusers account? We live in a world of ever increasing propaganda. Pointing it out is as substantive as it gets. If anything your message is better suited for the OP. They did exactly what you are flagging the child comment for.

If you think OP is smearing, you can refute his argument with facts and flag his comment. It’s a human bias to think someone whom we disagree with has a malicious agenda. Democracy can survive the worst oppression, but will perish if we fail to conduct civilized discussion and start accusing and labeling each other when we disagree.

Calling a liar a liar is better use of time and energy than tirelessly repeating facts ad nauseam.

I know we all have an impulse to take the easy path. But please think about what if you happen to be wrong, how a person would feel if he’s labeled a liar/paid troll for having an account that looks suspicious to some, and what meaningful discussion we can have if we just call each other liars?

2nd order lies are still lies.

> is ruled by a governing entity elected by Hong Kong people.

You called "elected" by a group consists of 1200 people as elected by Hong Kong people?

There is no perfect election format, even if the presidential election of US is often discussed for possible modifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

At least it is voted by the people no matter how imperfect it is. 1200 people is hardly a definition of "by people".

It's an electoral college system. By this logic, the US president is elected by only 538 "people".

AFAIK, those 538 people follow the decisions made earlier by the majority people.

Those 1200 definitely aren't.

Yes, the US system may not be perfect, but to put both on the same balance is such a misleading comparison.

What's your source for claims 3 & 4?

You can see their propaganda here https://reddit.com/r/sino This is pro-China propaganda sub-reddit. For example if you write something that they don't like then they are going to ban you for life. Very interesting, it is like from Soviet Union or North Korea.

"Hong Kong government was quick to withdrawn and eventually kill that bill but the protest got bigger regardless as they see the government is too pro-China"

There was public opposition since it was proposed in February but they only backed down in the presence of overwhelming public outcry and blamed the public for misunderstanding the intent of the bill. They were not "quick" nor were they easily persuaded to back down. They could easily reintroduce it after protests died down.

Is it generally thought that the protesters attacking police are legitimate protesters as opposed to agent provocateurs?

They could be provocateurs, and sadly there’s no way to verify this for now. My point is, to judge things fair and square you gotta hear from both sides:D

Having read all your comments it seems your point is to introduce doubt and muddy the waters. It's a classic propaganda tactic which is routinely employed by the CCP. It might work on reddit but it will take more than that here.

I certainly hope that it requires more than that here. It seems pretty transparent to me, but others are defending it, so I’m unsure if we’re really as immune as we’d like to think