Also, one might think, "how could this be the doing of China? They're smarter than that. They had to have calculated the consequences." To which I reply--Perhaps, but totalitarian regimes facilitate bureaucratic cultures of subservience and fear before power, rather than encouraging dissent in analysis. It is likely that someone at the top conceived of this or granted permission to outside actors and everyone else in the hierarchy fell into place. But practically speaking, of course China wouldn't get it, wouldn't understand a key if not the defining difference between Democracy and Totalitarian Capitalism--Free Speech. They thought they were doing something minor that wouldn't attract this much outrage and retaliatory invective. And they thought we would assume it to be DPRK because "China wouldn't do something like this" (no trade secrets stolen, sloppy anon vandalism motifs) and DPRK has the clear agenda. China's first attempt at high profile subterfuge was a flop. This is my take. I have no proof.Also, one might think, "how could this be the doing of China? They're smarter than that. They had to have calculated the consequences." To which I reply--Perhaps, but totalitarian regimes facilitate bureaucratic cultures of subservience and fear before power, rather than encouraging dissent in analysis. It is likely that someone at the top conceived of this or granted permission to outside actors and everyone else in the hierarchy fell into place. But practically speaking, of course China wouldn't get it, wouldn't understand a key if not the defining difference between Democracy and Totalitarian Capitalism--Free Speech. They thought they were doing something minor that wouldn't attract this much outrage and retaliatory invective. And they thought we would assume it to be DPRK because "China wouldn't do something like this" (no trade secrets stolen, sloppy anon vandalism motifs) and DPRK has the clear agenda. China's first attempt at high profile subterfuge was a flop. This is my take. I have no proof.