The article sticks to factual information.

To dispel the idea that the information may be fake or some low-skill demo site, they have verified that 6 of the people cited are real.

There is no written fear-mongering.

IMO, the main question a reader might have is "is this real?" Given the lack of puffery, my guess is yes.

Agreed. I could be biased here but it seems to me that, to much greater degree than I would have expected, criticism of China is held to a uniquely escalated standard for factual verification, and met with a lot of whataboutism non-sequiturs (including a couple in this thread already). So I appreciate the high reporting standards that go into work like this to minimize potential distractions.