A poll conducted for Reuters. Yea, no bias there.

  Reuters is a British news agency wholly owned by Thomson Reuters[0]

Even in that article, you can clearly see that the locals did not want all the things the protestors/western media wanted.

  Nevertheless, only 17% expressed support for seeking independence from China, and 20% were opposed to "the current path of one country, two systems" - the arrangement under which Hong Kong is governed by Beijing.

  Many protesters say Beijing has used its authority under the system to gradually undermine certain freedoms - such as an independent judiciary and freedom of speech - that are supposed to be guaranteed at least until 2047 under the arrangement.

  The results of the survey, involving 1,021 people and conducted from Dec. 17-20, also showed a large plurality of respondents mainly blamed the Hong Kong government for the crisis, the worst civil unrest to hit the city in decades, rather than the central government in Beijing.

  This paper directly contradicts your claim it was mainly due to housing [4].

Summarize it? Having lived in Hong Kong and talked to many locals, had local friends, talked to young HKers, no one could convince me that housing wasn't the biggest reason for the pent up frustration that ultimately led to the protests.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters

Okay use my 2nd source then? Data source:

> The survey data reported in this article were collected via a telephone survey conducted by a research centre at a university in Hong Kong from May to June 2020.

And they also quote this paper with very similar results

> Chung, Ting-Yiu Robert, Pang, Ka-Lai Karie, Lee, Wing-Yi Winnie, and Edward, Chit-Fai, comp. 2020. Survey on Hong Kong People’s Views Regarding the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement (Round 3). Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute. July 10. Accessed March 19, 2025.

I summarized it with a quote? What do you want? Alternatively/also read 2nd source, which also discuss it, and again they say economic/housing was a factor, but not the largest like you claimed.

  Okay use my 2nd source then? Data source:

That's the Reuters one.

  I summarized it with a quote? What do you want? Alternatively/also read 2nd source, which also discuss it, and again they say economic/housing was a factor, but not the largest like you claimed.

Why did they say housing wasn't a reason or the main reason for the youth that continued the year long violent protests?

What is Reuters about the data source being a phone survey conducted by a research centre at a university in Hong Kong? (Or the 2nd source they linked to which I quoted above)?

They collected the data FOR Reuters.

I guess you didn’t check your own source.

Source? And just so we are clear, are you suggesting academic malpractice, that the university intentionally designed it to be biased?

The source is literally in your link. Read it carefully.

  residents polled in a survey conducted **for Reuters** by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute

It's literally commission by Reuters, a British news agency. It isn't academic malpractice because the institute was no longer part of HKU. Further more, their chief executive was accused of treason and has historically expressed anti-Beijing, pro-succession ideas. Clearly this institution was not going to be unbiased.

Anyways, how was your experience living in Hong Kong in 2019?

Polls use sampling to avoid the sort of social bias suggested by your question.

Ask the right person, like someone who protested, and they could tell you that literally everyone supports the protests. Why, everyone they know participated in at least one, and most of them went to many of them!

Regardless, I'm not sure why injustice should be subject to a popular referendum. If greater than 50% of polled North Koreans praise their current political leadership, does that make their current leadership good?

Hong Kong is one of my favorite cities, and I was there in 2019 as it happens, though not for the full year. I knew people who participated in protests, and people who sniffed and said they were stupid, although when pressed, that was more out of a belief (correct, it turns out) that they would be ineffective, and were dangerous to participate in.

It is still true that something of value has been lost, while it remains a fantastic city. It is still true that multiple political prisoners are being held on charges most of us would identify as unjust.

It is also true that protesters were upset about many varied things, including the outrageous cost of housing. But it's not clear what you're trying to say with that and silly arguing about polling sources. That Jimmy Lai, Joshua Wong, and many others deserve their imprisonment? That nothing of value has been lost as China has suppressed dissent and the free press in Hong Kong?

They absolutely deserved imprisonment. They broke laws and went to foreign countries for aid.

Imagine if Hawaii tried advocated for succession and went to China for help. The US isn't going to do anything? Come on. This double standard is ridiculous.

By the way, the protests lasted for an entire year before it ended. Clearly China gave them a lot of leeway. But in the end, if you tried to get foreign governments to interfere, you better have a good plan.

This is from 1st link, not 2nd like I said?

> residents polled in a survey conducted *for Reuters* by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute

You managed to mistake [1] with [2] three times, really?

The University of Cambridge, UK source is the 2nd one right?

What about it makes you think that it's right and not the other sources citing housing? How much do you know about the HK housing situation in 2014-2019?

  The survey data reported in this article were collected via a telephone survey conducted by a research centre at a university in Hong Kong from May to June 2020. 

What survey was this?

Yes which says nothing about Reuter like you wrote 3 times?

edit:

I'll just reply here since max depth. You made a claim, that [2] has relation to Reuters. It doesn't, end of story.

Huh? I'm just wondering why you even linked me to a source that is commissioned by a British news agency done by an institution that has historically been pro-sucession. And then another one by authors at The China Quarterly which has clearly been anti-China historically.

Can we at least check biases first?

I'm still looking for how your life was living in HK in 2019. Or are you just basing this purely on western media and institutions, like I mentioned in the OP?

Normally numbers are countered with numbers that back up your position, not personal anecdotes and attacks on source credibility.

I mean, the numbers speak for themselves right? Only 37% participated in any demonstration - likely only the non-violent ones in the beginning.

His source doesn't actually disprove what I said - that most locals hated the protests.

37% participating in demonstrations implies that for your statement to hold true, around 80% of all the remaining people who did not participate in a demonstration would’ve had to hate the protests. I find it somewhat implausible that less than 20% of the people who didn’t go to a demonstration had either positive or somewhat neutral feelings on the matter. Surely the population of Hong Kong is not this neatly divided between two extremes?

There is a difference between demonstrations and violent protests. The protests lasted nearly a year.

Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK.

> Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK.

Now you mistake [3] for [1] too? [3] is a peer reviewed paper (just like [2]), and neither [2] nor [3] has anything to do with Reuters (the British news agency you refer to).

Let me link [3] again for you:

[3]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti...

edit:

Since max depth I'll just reply here (since you clearly also argue in bad faith). You claimed the paper had relation to a British news agency, it doesn't. So factually you are wrong, end of story.

"Peer reviewed". My goodness.

No, I'm not mistaken.

Regardless, how was your experience living in HK in 2019? Hopefully you've talked to many locals in cantonese?