What's important is the framing, and what is left in vs what is left out. Those that were harmed by the government popping the real estate bubble were those who had the extra money to invest in real estate, which is the primary vehicle for balooning your wealth in China. The user I replied to specifically stated working class, which in reality should be more like the petty bourgeois.

Secondly, the scale of violence inplied by the user is the idea that the state sent in jackbooted thugs to crush the protest, but reading the article it seems as though it was only a handful of people that got into a skirmish with plainclothes police officers. That doesn't excuse anything, of course, but now we know "CPC crushes working class protestors with police" is at best an exaggeration of "crushes" and the "working class" part is an embellishment.

Finally, the article says the government worked to address the complaints! This wasn't a protest against the government, but a protest for government intervention. This wasn't because the CPC did something bad, but was a request for the CPC to step into the banking system failing and help people harmed by that.

So, again, we have what appears to be light police skirmishes with upper-middle class people harmed by a banking failure that requested CPC intervention, which they did. What they framed it as was poor, working class protestors harmed by CPC action being met by overwhelming jackbooted thugs in order to squash dissent against the CPC. See how that's dishonest? And that's taking the Guardian at face value, just reading between the lines.