Maybe the headline's a bit misleading, but what you're saying is almost exactly what the article is talking about. (The article immediately refutes the notion of "smashing its tech industry" right away)
The article is mostly weird kremlinology of what the chinese leadership are up to. Which seems unnecessary if they're widely publishing 5 year plans that tell you what they're doing.
Similar to Tesla's secret plan to produce cheaper and cheaper vehicles at larger scale, the boring truth isn't a big click winner.
Yes. The 5 year plans contain a lot of verbiage, and sound like political speeches in part. But you look in there and find specific goals. Sometimes very specific: "We will accelerate the large-scale deployment of 5G networks, increase the user penetration rate to 56% ... comprehensively promote the commercial deployment of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)."
There's identification of very specific technologies that currently need to be imported: "high-purity electronic materials such as photoresists for ICs."
There's realism rather than hype: "Promote the demonstration operation of the
C919 large passenger aircraft and the serialized development of the ARJ2I regional
passenger aircraft." The C919 project, to build an airliner comparable to the Airbus A320, hasn't been going well, although prototypes are flying. So the goal for this plan is merely "demonstration operation". The ARJ2I is a 90-seat or so regional airliner now in early production. So those goals should be met. "Dominate world aircraft industry" might be nice, but that's not in the 5 year plan.
There's a longer range 2035 goals document, in which one goal is to get GDP per capita up into the middle of the developed country range.
What part of the 5 year plan outlined the strategy behind why the CCP went after DIDI? I'm genuinely curious and it might be more useful to link to the relevant parts. Some people might actually be interested in reading those and better understanding this.
For what it's worth those 5-years plans used to get changed regularly, at least when my country, Romania, was doing them. For those that can read Romanian I recommend this book [1] about the 5-year plans from the 1970s Socialist Romania.
but they're 'smashing' the likes of Ant Financial who were doing predatory, unsecured lending on an unprecedented scale.
So IMO the thesis of smashing 'Internet' companies is incorrect - they're just making sure economy doesn't go into bubble territory (lending fuels spending) and the likes of Jack Ma, who are detached from the party don't get too much power/money.
The Chinese central government was always really ambivalent about foreign IPOs. DiDi has too much control over domestic markets for the Chinese to be comfortable with foreign influence. I don't think it has anything to do with the anniversary.
Actually, the CCP never formally accepted the foreign stock ownership structure, for example. It was always a grey area.
Similar to Tesla's secret plan to produce cheaper and cheaper vehicles at larger scale, the boring truth isn't a big click winner.