Your account had also been breaking the site guidelines by using HN primarily for political and national arguments. That's against the rules, but I see you've already begun correcting it with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20686964, which is good. For more about how we apply this test, see https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20primarily%20test&sor... and https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20political%20overlap&... if interested.
I appreciate the difficulty you face, and that anyone faces, when presenting a minority view on a highly charged topic. HN's population, though international, is largely Western, and that inevitably determines the majority view on China/Hong Kong. You clearly have a different perspective, which I assume is because your experiences are different from those of HN's mostly Western readers. That means you have value to add here, as anyone with a diverse experience does. But it also puts you in a tough position, because even a slight provocation is going to trigger an avalanche of frustration from others, leading to a destructive flamewar. People find it exceedingly difficult to receive information that falls, let's say, more than one standard deviation from their perspective. Outlying information creates discomfort which is difficult to contain. It doesn't matter that it's true; if anything, that makes it harder to contain. Uncontained discomfort boils over into counter-provocation and accusations of bad faith. We all have this problem.
That puts you in a tough position on HN. Your options are: not to comment, to comment in frustration and provoke a flamewar, or to comment neutrally and resist the temptation to lash out at the majority. Only the latter is able to communicate the value of what you have to share, but it's not easy. It takes patience and inner calm.
Yes, this means there is a greater burden on one who holds a minority or counterintuitive view. This isn't fair. But it's the way that mass communication works. If the goal is to communicate—to learn, rather than do battle—then the one who knows more, who has a truth others don't have, has a greater responsibility. If you don't rise to that responsibility, you end up discrediting that truth in the eyes of the majority, which makes the situation worse, even though lashing out provides a little temporary relief. I've written about this principle over the years because most of us find it counterintuitive.
If you look at twitter messages, timeline. I believe it was an attempt to spread a news that a military build up is happening near Shenzhen for crackdown on Hong Kong to foment protestors. Hence my comments about conflating the facts, I did not say its true or false but conflated (the very definition of fake news). If there is a button on that post to report, I would have done that instead of commenting on the post with details why I feel its a fake news.
Regarding prison cells size apartments I took a leaf from news by a major outlet with reputation I use, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/01/hong-kongs-poo...
Go through my submissions and you won't see political or national posts. I have only commented on already political or national news by others on HN front-pages. If the guideline in HN not to have political or national discussion on it, I believe it will be better to not have any posts in front-pages on it.
My submissions and comments are mostly technology in nature which is my passion.