There's a back and forth the next hemisphere over, one between a pair of writers arguing either side of an election.
Setting emotion aside for a moment and looking at the numbers - there was 71% voter turnout. How much of the remaining 29% was made up of those volunteers and supporters of the establishment who were intimidated out of voting, and those elderly and disabled who didn't receive the voting accommodations they needed?
Speculation here, but say that the remaining 29% were all pro-establishment. Those better with numbers than I am can answer this question more clearly, but if the votes of that 29% had been counted, would those votes have been enough to change the vote in favor of the establishment?
The author of the letter in support of the establishment, rather than the protests, spoke of "being freer than Western democracies in many ways." In what ways?
I'm going to hazard a guess on at least one way - there's a sort of freedom that comes from trusting that a leader will make decisions based on the best interest of those who are led. That trust cannot be given blindly, especially to a leader who's proven willing to ignore (香港), suppress (新疆), berate (英国，美国，捷克共和国, still there, 微软, among others). I'm not surprised that such a response would lead to renewed anger and another surge of protests.
However tiring and time-consuming it is to keep up with the news, comparing sources that report on these leaders and considering the biases of these sources, it's a choice between this and book burning.
The choice is worth the fight, and I'd rather stay nerdy.