【Epoch Times, December 22, 2025 News】After the Chinese travel platform Ctrip partnered with the Cambodian tourism department, some Chinese internet users launched a campaign on social media to uninstall the related software and deactivate their accounts, urging others to stop using the platform’s services. The discussions quickly spread across various social media platforms.
Some netizens compiled and shared data showing a significant increase in uninstalls and account deactivations of Ctrip-related applications shortly after the partnership announcement. Many screenshots showing “account permanently deactivated successfully” circulated online. The relevant data mainly came from netizens’ self-compilation and sharing, not confirmed by the platform or third-party organizations, but it sparked ongoing discussions on social media.
On December 22nd, a netizen from Guangxi, Zhao Wu, told Epoch Times that he uninstalled the Ctrip ticket booking software he had been using for years the previous day. He said he usually doesn’t pay attention to the travel industry news, but after seeing Ctrip’s announcement of collaboration with the Cambodian tourism department, discussions quickly spread online, making him feel uneasy. “I used to use Ctrip for business trips and ticket purchases for many years. This time I still deleted it,” Zhao Wu said.
Zhao Wu mentioned that some of his friends have also been uninstalling related applications one after another, with some choosing not to voice their opinions on public platforms but privately sharing screenshots of uninstalls. He said, “People cannot really explain what specific impact it may have, but they just don’t want to use it anymore.”
According to screenshots shared by netizens, promotional content such as “Joining hands with the Cambodian tourism department” and “Promoting Cambodia as a tourist destination” appeared on the Ctrip website. The related images were subsequently widely reposted on platforms such as Douyin, Weibo, and X, becoming a focal point of public attention.
Several netizens recently posted on various platforms such as Weibo, Douyin, and Xiaohongshu, stating that they have stopped using Ctrip’s services and urging the public to switch to other ticket booking platforms. Some netizens commented that uninstalling and deactivating accounts are “personal choices,” while others believe it is a response to the company’s partnership decisions.
There are also circulating screenshots showing a rise in the uninstallation rate among some young users shortly after the announcement of the collaboration between Ctrip and the Cambodian tourism department. The related charts lack data sources and cannot be independently verified for authenticity, but they have been repeatedly referenced online, keeping the discussions ongoing.
Some netizens reported that the discussion contents appeared to be limited, difficult to search, or posts were made invisible on certain social media platforms. The related topics were briefly unable to display normally, with only sporadic discussions remaining.
As of now, Ctrip has not publicly responded to the situation of software uninstalls and account deactivations. The Cambodian relevant departments have also not addressed the questions raised by netizens.
Public records show that Ctrip is one of China’s major online travel platforms, offering services such as flight tickets, hotels, train tickets, and overseas travel products. In recent years, several Chinese travel platforms have increased cooperation with Southeast Asian tourism agencies, sparking discussions on social media multiple times.
Wu Changming, a scholar from Tsinghua University in Beijing, mentioned in an interview that some netizens have reservations about traveling to Cambodia, which relates to discussions on local security and telecommunications fraud issues on the internet in recent years. Cambodia has been repeatedly associated with telecommunications fraud operations in public opinion, which has to some extent amplified public doubts about travel safety.
Wu Changming pointed out that there are also circulating discussions on social media concerning local social issues in Cambodia, but the content mostly remains at the level of social media discussions without authoritative confirmation, potentially influencing some people’s judgment on travel risks during the repeated dissemination process.
Some netizens have extended the discussions to network information related to Cambodian medical institutions, questioning their backgrounds. These claims have been shared and discussed on social media platforms, yet they lack official confirmation.
Regarding the circulated information online, on December 15th, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanhua University issued a statement through official channels, denying any cooperation with the so-called “Cambodian Institute of Life Sciences.” The statement revealed that upon verification, the institution had used the name and logo of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanhua University without authorization, along with publishing false collaboration information.
The hospital stated that an investigation has been initiated regarding the situation and reserves the right to pursue responsibilities according to the law. The statement was later shared by some netizens.
However, some netizens commented that such clarifications indicate the complexity of information sources on the internet, making it difficult to discern the truth. Ordinary users find it challenging to determine which information is authentic and reliable, keeping some concerns from dissipating completely.
Furthermore, some netizens also mentioned that the Thai military recently publicly stated they had taken action against targets in Cambodia related to telecommunications fraud. The related news has been repeatedly quoted online, becoming one of the backgrounds in discussing the safety environment in Cambodia.
As of now, neither Ctrip nor the Cambodian authorities have provided further responses to the questions raised by netizens. The continuation of the collaboration, as well as potential adjustments in the platform’s external communication strategies, are still under public scrutiny.
Some observers pointed out that this controversy reflects high sensitivity among some Chinese internet users regarding cross-border travel safety, personal data protection, and platform responsibility. For some users, whether to continue using a particular travel platform has become not just a choice based on price and itinerary but increasingly a decision based on trust and risk assessment.