4月27日，浙江宁波清洁用品展暨杯壶餐厨具用品博览会上，主办方宁波中匠展览有限公司以每人每天120元的报酬雇用数百名老人冒充客户充场，事情败露后，数百名参展商当场集体抗议，要求退还参展费用。
On April 27, the organizer of a cleaning products and kitchenware expo in Ningbo, Zhejiang — Ningbo Zhongjiang Exhibition Co., Ltd. — was exposed for paying hundreds of elderly people 120 yuan per day to pose as customers. After the scheme was uncovered, hundreds of exhibitors staged a collective protest on the spot, demanding refunds of their booth fees.
「贵州龙里数百高中生集会反抗监狱式管理（2025.11.17）」贵州龙里县一中的数百名学生，本周一发起集体行动，聚集在宿舍楼前高喊口号，抗议学校于当天开始实施的“监狱式”作息制度。
事件的起因源于龙里县一中于11月11日公布的新版作息时间安排，按照该作息时间要求，学生每天需要完成13节课程外加早读。为了塞进如此高密度的课程安排，学校要求学生早上 6 点起床、晚上 11 点10 分就寝。这意味着学生每晚仅能睡约不到7小时，即便再加上一小时午休，也低于中国国家卫健委建议的“高中生应保证8小时睡眠”的标准。更令学生不满的是，新的规定要求午休必须在教室内进行，不得返回宿舍。许多学生表示，趴在课桌上根本无法获得有效休息，如此高强度的课程安排与被压缩的睡眠时间，无疑将会摧毁他们的身心健康。
在作息时间表公布后，学生们迅速在社交媒体上表达了强烈不满，并引发大规模共鸣。其中，一篇题为《被时间绑架的青春》的文章在学生群体中广为流传，它将矛头直指这种畸形的教育模式，尖锐地质问：“这究竟是培育人才的校园，还是生产流水线的工厂？”文章指出，这种教育观不仅透支着学生的身体健康——导致“近视率攀升、睡眠不足、心理问题低龄化”，更摧毁了他们的学习热情与内在驱动力，让“厌学”成为青春里最沉重的注脚。有学生更是直言：“比监狱都还恐怖，只是活生生的压榨。” 这些声音为最终的集体行动埋下了火种。
11月17日，在新的作息时间开始执行的当天，数百名学生默契地聚集到宿舍门口，高喊“开门”等口号，表达对学校的监狱式管理方法的不满，并要求进入寝室。据现场学生透露，当时有多名老师试图阻拦学生，但未能成功。最终，迫于学生们团结一致的压力，学校管理层做出了初步让步，当天立即允许学生回寝室午休，并决定今后的午休时间，也将在寝室内进行。
不过，截至11月18日，学校尚未决定是否修改作息时间，缩短学生的学习时长。对此学生们表示，目前，他们还在与学校抗争，并希望能取得好的结果。
“Hundreds of High School Students in Longli, Guizhou Rally Against ‘Prison-Style’ Management (2025.11.17)”
Hundreds of students at Longli No.1 High School in Guizhou launched a collective action this Monday, gathering in front of their dormitory building and chanting slogans to protest the “prison-style” schedule the school began enforcing that day.
The incident stemmed from a new timetable the school released on November 11. According to the plan, students must complete 13 class periods each day, plus morning reading. To fit in such an intense workload, the school requires students to wake up at 6 a.m. and go to bed at 11:10 p.m. This means students get less than seven hours of sleep per night— even with a one-hour lunch break added, it still falls short of the eight hours recommended by China’s National Health Commission for high school students. What angered students further was that the new rules require them to take their lunch break in the classroom and forbid returning to the dorms. Many said that sleeping face-down on a desk cannot provide any real rest. Such high-intensity scheduling and reduced sleep, they argue, will inevitably damage their physical and mental health.
After the timetable was published, students quickly voiced strong dissatisfaction on social media, sparking widespread resonance. Among the posts, an article titled “Youth Kidnapped by Time” spread widely among students. It sharply criticized this distorted education model and asked: “Is this a school meant to nurture talent, or a factory assembly line?” The article said this approach not only harms students’ health—leading to “rising myopia rates, sleep deprivation, and younger psychological issues”—but also destroys their motivation to learn, making “academic burnout” a heavy label on their youth. Some even said, “It’s worse than a prison—just pure exploitation.” These voices laid the groundwork for the eventual collective action.
On November 17, the day the new schedule took effect, hundreds of students gathered in front of the dormitory, chanting “Open the door!” to express their discontent with the school’s prison-like management and to demand access to their rooms. According to students on site, several teachers tried to stop them but failed. In the end, under the pressure of united student action, the school administration made a temporary concession: students were allowed to return to their dorms for lunch break that day, and the school announced that future lunch breaks would also be taken in the dorms.
However, as of November 18, the school has not decided whether it will revise the timetable or reduce study hours. Students say they are still negotiating with the school and hope for a positive outcome.
「湖南邵阳小学操场坍塌，家长、业主集会抗议（2025.10.17、18）」10月17日晚至18日凌晨，湖南邵阳市资江学校操场突发坍塌事故后，毗邻的文明家园小区业主及部分家长聚集在学校门口，高喊“还我人身安全”等口号，要求当地政府彻查涉事开发商。
据悉，资江学校与文明家园小区仅相距约50米，由于开发商在小区内修建地下车库，已经持续挖掘了一年，目前，地面已经被挖出了一个巨大的坑。业主认为，坍塌事故可能与该地下车库在施工时未做好防护措施有关。事发前，业主已经多次向有关部门反映，但无人理会。
10月17日晚，资江学校发生操场坍塌事件，事发时虽无人员伤亡，但学校部分设施受损，教学已被迫中断。18日白天，资江学校大门及周边道路已被警察封锁。
“Playground Collapse at Primary School in Shaoyang, Hunan — Parents and Residents Protest (Oct 17–18, 2025)”
From the evening of October 17 to the early hours of October 18, following a sudden playground collapse at Zijiang School in Shaoyang City, Hunan Province, parents and residents from the nearby Wenming Jiayuan residential complex gathered in front of the school, chanting slogans such as “Give us back our safety,” demanding a thorough investigation into the developer involved.
According to reports, Zijiang School is located only about 50 meters away from Wenming Jiayuan. The developer has been excavating an underground parking garage inside the residential complex for about a year, creating a massive pit in the ground. Residents believe the collapse may be linked to inadequate protective measures during the construction of the garage. Before the incident, they had repeatedly reported safety concerns to the relevant authorities, but received no response.
On the night of October 17, the playground at Zijiang School collapsed. Although no casualties were reported, part of the school’s facilities were damaged, forcing classes to be suspended. By the following day, October 18, police had cordoned off the school entrance and surrounding roads.
【湖南长沙上百骑手堵门抗议物业禁令】周一（9月8日）晚间，上百名外卖骑手聚集在湖南长沙望城区月亮岛明发阅江悦府小区门口，堵住大门，抗议物业阻止他们骑车进入小区前往砂之船奥莱金街取餐。此举导致骑手的取餐时间比平时延长了半小时。知情人士透露，物业之所以采取这一做法，是因为近期未收到摊位费。次日凌晨，在警察承诺将会于当天上午与街道领导、奥莱、物业负责人及骑手代表召开会议商讨解决后，示威骑手才陆续散去。不过，骑手们表示，若在9月9日下午5点半之前仍未得到满意答复，他们将再次发起抗议行动。
[Hundreds of Delivery Riders in Changsha Block Entrance to Protest Property Ban]
On the evening of Monday, September 8, more than a hundred food delivery riders gathered at the entrance of the Mingfa Yuejiang Yuefu residential compound in Yueliangdao, Wangcheng District, Changsha, Hunan, blocking the gate to protest the property management’s ban on them riding through the compound to reach the Sasseur Outlets Golden Street for order pickups. This restriction caused their pickup time to be extended by about half an hour compared with usual. According to informed sources, the property management took this measure because stall fees had not been paid recently. In the early hours of the following day, the riders dispersed after police promised to hold a meeting that morning with subdistrict officials, Sasseur representatives, property management, and rider representatives to discuss a resolution. However, the riders stated that if they did not receive a satisfactory response by 5:30 p.m. on September 9, they would launch another protest.
「南方五省大量关闭乡村学校，14校“留守儿童”被逼成维权者」九月本是中国的开学季，但在广东、广西等南方五省，许多农村地区的“留守儿童”却面临着无学可上的困境。他们不得不走上街头，为自己争取基本的受教育权利，从不谙世事的小学生，被迫成为了“维权者、上访者”。
9月2日，广东廉江横山镇下路小学下坡仔分校门口，一群孩子聚集在一起，高喊“我要上学！”，抗议学校被关闭。类似的情景，近期在广东、云南、贵州、广西、福建的十四所乡村学校门口反复上演。一些孩子甚至跟随家长前往当地政府或教育局维权，这使得他们在小学求学阶段，就不得不体验到生活的艰辛。
近年来，随着中国人口出生率持续走低，乡村小学面临生源锐减的问题。教育部门以“优化资源配置”为由，开始大规模撤并学校，将学生集中到更大但离家更远的学校。在官方的叙述中，这是一种合理的教育改革，但对于那些几乎完全由年迈老人照顾的农村留守儿童来说，他们是这一政策的牺牲品。
由于父母在外地打工，这些孩子通常由爷爷奶奶或外公外婆照看。当家门口的学校被关闭后，他们不得不步行数公里到更远的学校上学。然而，地方政府并未提供校车服务，这不仅增加了孩子们在上学路上的交通安全风险，也给年迈的接送者带来了沉重的负担。
讽刺的是，即使父母把孩子带到城市里上学，也同样面临困境。因为，在城里上学需要买房，但高昂的房价让绝大多数农民工家庭望而却步。即使能够买房，农村户口也常常让他们在城市教育体系中遭遇不公。在农村上学困难，在城市又无法立足，一些孩子很可能因此成为失学儿童。
为了孩子的受教育权，许多家长将抗议视频和文章发布到社交媒体上寻求帮助。然而，这些本应得到关注的正当诉求，却常常被迅速屏蔽或删除。这种“看不见”的困境，让许多家长更加绝望。
在撤并学校的逻辑里，孩子们往往只是统计表上的数字，学校的存续只关乎成本与效率；然而在乡村家庭的心中，那些校舍却是孩子们接受教育的唯一希望。如今，大量留守儿童被迫站在校门口高喊“我要上学”，这一幕不仅折射出教育资源分配的巨大不平衡，更揭示了在城乡鸿沟与制度壁垒之下，最脆弱的群体如何从幼年便背负起沉重的代价。
因被关闭而引发抗议的学校：
广东高州深镇镇仙人洞村仙人洞小学
广东廉江和寮镇塘拱村小学
广东廉江横山镇下路小学下坡仔分校
广东廉江青平镇黄竹江小学
广东廉江新民镇义路塘小学
广东罗定罗平镇横垌小学
云南昭通威信县扎西镇黄家坪小学
云南昭通彝良县洛旺苗族乡树草坪村树草小学
云南昭通镇雄罗坎镇大水井小学
贵州毕节大方县瓢井镇回龙小学
贵州望谟麻山镇牛场小学
广西梧州龙圩区新地镇思现分校
福建省三明市尤溪县中仙乡文井村
“Mass Closures of Rural Schools in Five Southern Provinces Force ‘Left-Behind Children’ to Become Petitioners” September is normally the start of the new school term in China. But in rural areas across Guangdong and four other southern provinces, many “left-behind children” now face the predicament of having no school to attend. They have been forced onto the streets to demand their basic right to education—young primary school students, once innocent and carefree, are now compelled to become “petitioners” and “rights defenders.” On September 2, at the gate of the Xiapozi branch of Xialu Primary School in Hengshan Town, Lianjiang, Guangdong, a group of children gathered and shouted “I want to go to school!” in protest at the school’s closure. Similar scenes have recently been repeated outside fourteen rural schools in Guangdong, Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangxi, and Fujian. Some children have even followed their parents to local government or education bureaus to seek redress, experiencing hardship at an age when they should only be focused on learning. In recent years, as China’s birth rate has continued to decline, rural primary schools have faced a severe drop in enrollment. Under the banner of “optimizing resource allocation,” education authorities have carried out large-scale school mergers, transferring students to bigger but more distant schools. Officially, this is framed as a reasonable educational reform. But for rural left-behind children—most of whom are raised by elderly grandparents while their parents work far away—it has made them the victims of policy. With neighborhood schools shuttered, these children must now walk several kilometers to reach more distant schools. Local governments have not provided school bus services, which not only heightens traffic safety risks for the children but also places a heavy burden on their elderly caretakers. Ironically, even if migrant workers bring their children to the cities, they face another set of challenges. Urban schooling usually requires home ownership, yet soaring housing prices put this out of reach for most rural families. Even when parents manage to buy property, their rural household registration often exposes their children to discrimination in the urban education system. Difficulties in accessing education in the countryside, coupled with barriers in the cities, mean that some children risk dropping out altogether. To defend their children’s right to education, many parents have posted protest videos and articles on social media seeking help. Yet these legitimate appeals, which deserve public attention, are often swiftly censored or deleted. This “invisible” struggle has left many parents in despair. In the logic of school mergers, children are reduced to mere numbers in a spreadsheet; the survival of a school is measured only in terms of cost and efficiency. But for rural families, those classrooms are the sole hope for their children’s education. Today, with large numbers of left-behind children standing at school gates shouting “I want to go to school,” the scene not only reveals the deep imbalance in educational resources, but also shows how, beneath the urban-rural divide and systemic barriers, the most vulnerable are forced to bear heavy costs from early childhood.
Schools closed and triggering protests include: •Xianrendong Primary School, Xianrendong Village, Shenzhen Town, Gaozhou, Guangdong •Tanggong Village Primary School, Heliao Town, Lianjiang, Guangdong •Xiapozi Branch, Xialu Primary School, Hengshan Town, Lianjiang, Guangdong •Huangzhujian Primary School, Qingping Town, Lianjiang, Guangdong •Yilutang Primary School, Xinmin Town, Lianjiang, Guangdong •Hengdong Primary School, Luoping Town, Luoding, Guangdong •Huangjiaping Primary School, Zhaxi Town, Weixin County, Zhaotong, Yunnan •Shucao Primary School, Shucaoping Village, Luowang Miao Township, Yiliang County, Zhaotong, Yunnan •Dashuijing Primary School, Luokan Town, Zhenxiong County, Zhaotong, Yunnan •Huilong Primary School, Piaojing Town, Dafang County, Bijie, Guizhou •Niuchang Primary School, Mashan Town, Wangmo, Guizhou •Sixian Branch, Xindi Town, Longxu District, Wuzhou, Guangxi •Wenjing Village Primary School, Zhongxian Township, Youxi County, Sanming, Fujian
山东菏泽牡丹区第二十二中学今年收了100个班（有说94个班）的初一新生，导致教室不够，便把初二年级第四部的上千名学生转到一所甲醛超标的幼儿园去上学，引发家长不满，8月29日至30日连续两天到学校抗议。
This year, the No. 22 Middle School in Mudan District, Heze, Shandong, enrolled 100 classes of seventh graders (some say 94), resulting in a shortage of classrooms. As a result, over a thousand eighth-grade students from the school’s Fourth Division were moved to attend classes in a kindergarten with excessive formaldehyde levels. This sparked parents’ discontent, leading them to protest at the school for two consecutive days, August 29 and 30.
8月31日，广西都安县三只羊中学与中国移动相互勾结，强行要求中学生使用刷脸支付系统吃饭，并收取120块钱费用，引发学生和家长不满，聚集抗议。在压力之下，校长当众宣布将保证学生当天有宵夜吃，将会退回收取的费用。
On August 31, San Zhi Yang Middle School in Du’an County, Guangxi, colluded with China Mobile to forcibly require students to use a facial recognition payment system in the cafeteria, charging a fee of 120 yuan. This sparked dissatisfaction among students and parents, who gathered in protest. Under pressure, the principal publicly announced that students would be guaranteed supper that day and that the collected fees would be refunded.
【广西钦州村民堵收费站，抗议政府乱收费与警察对峙】8月1日，广西钦州市钦南区久隆镇村民发起抗议，堵塞国道G325上的久隆收费站，抗议地方政府违规乱收费以及堵塞村道，并与大批警察对峙。
当天晚上，迫于压力，当地政府拆除了堵塞在村道上的水泥墩。
村民表示，久隆收费站早在2024年就已超过收费年限，按规定应当撤除，但当地政府为了敛财，仍强行收费，甚至用水泥墩封死村道，阻止村民绕行。
2009年起，中国取消了国道收费政策，但自去年起，多地政府借口“运营维护”，重启了国道收费。
今年4月12日，村民曾因同样原因围堵了久隆收费站，迫使其暂停收费，但仅过了两天便再度开始收费。
[Guangxi Villagers Block Toll Station, Confront Police Over Illegal Fees]
On August 1, villagers in Jiulong Town, Qinzhou City, Guangxi, launched a protest by blocking the Jiulong toll station on National Highway G325. They accused the local government of illegally continuing to charge tolls past the expiration date and of blocking village roads. The protest escalated into a standoff with a large number of police officers.
That evening, under mounting pressure, the local authorities removed the concrete barriers that had been used to block the village road.
According to villagers, the Jiulong toll station’s authorized charging period expired in 2024, and it should have been dismantled according to regulations. However, the local government, motivated by profit, continued to enforce toll collection and even blocked alternate village routes with concrete barricades to prevent locals from bypassing the station.
China officially abolished tolls on national highways in 2009, but since last year, many local governments have resumed toll collection under the pretext of “maintenance and operations.”
On April 12 of this year, villagers had already staged a similar protest at the Jiulong toll station, forcing it to temporarily suspend toll collection. However, the tolls resumed just two days later.
「广东深圳：上百摊贩堵路抗议城管暴力，千人围观僵持至凌晨（2025.07.05、06）」周六晚至周日凌晨，广东深圳龙岗区爆发了一起大规模抗议事件。因不满城管在驱赶过程中使用暴力，上百名摊贩集体占据道路抗议，现场聚集了数以千计的围观市民，直至次日凌晨方才散去。
据多位目击者透露，当晚事发地位于深圳龙岗区布吉街道长青路凯旋荟附近，多名女性摊贩在遭到城管驱赶时被粗暴推搡，甚至被城管使用警棍殴打。之后，被打的摊贩倒地不起，以抗议城管暴行，这一行为迅速引发周边摊贩的愤怒，许多摊贩及其亲属、朋友赶往现场声援，最终演变为一场持续数小时的集体抗议。
现场交通很快陷入瘫痪，上千市民聚集围观，气氛一度紧张，摊贩与执法人员多次发生言语冲突甚至肢体推搡。双方的对峙从当晚一直持续至次日凌晨2点左右，最终双方选择前往附近的政府部门寻求交涉与解决，围观市民也陆续散去。
近期，城管驱赶摊贩的事件在各地屡次出现，背后原因是整体经济不景气，失业率显著上升，大批失业人员为了维持生计，选择以门槛较低的摆地摊作为谋生方式，导致城市摊贩数量激增，给街道带来了巨大压力。为此，当局试图通过禁止摆摊，将这些失业人口驱逐出城市。然而，对于这些将摆地摊视为最后收入来源的民众而言，这或许是他们赖以生存的“最后一根稻草”。
Shenzhen, Guangdong: Hundreds of Street Vendors Block Road to Protest Urban Management Violence; Thousands Gather as Standoff Lasts Until Early Morning (July 5–6, 2025)
From Saturday night to early Sunday morning, a large-scale protest broke out in Longgang District, Shenzhen, Guangdong. In response to violent enforcement by city management officers, over a hundred street vendors occupied the road in protest. The scene drew thousands of onlookers and did not disperse until the following morning.
According to multiple eyewitnesses, the incident occurred near Kaixuanhui on Changqing Road in Buji Subdistrict. Several female vendors were violently shoved and even beaten with batons by urban management officers during a forced eviction. Some of the assaulted vendors collapsed to the ground in protest, triggering widespread anger among nearby vendors. Many of their relatives and friends rushed to the scene in solidarity, escalating the incident into a collective protest that lasted for several hours.
Traffic in the area quickly came to a standstill. Over a thousand citizens gathered to watch as tensions escalated. Verbal disputes and even physical altercations broke out between the vendors and enforcement personnel. The standoff continued until around 2 a.m. the next day, when both parties eventually agreed to seek resolution through a nearby government office. The crowd gradually dispersed thereafter.
In recent times, incidents involving the forced removal of street vendors by urban management have occurred frequently across the country. This trend stems from the overall economic downturn and rising unemployment. As a result, many jobless individuals have turned to street vending—a low-barrier means of survival—leading to a sharp increase in the number of vendors and placing considerable strain on urban spaces. Authorities have responded by attempting to ban street vending and expel these individuals from city areas. However, for many, street vending may represent their final lifeline—the last straw keeping them afloat.
7月4日上午，湖北武汉的“九龙城寨”，武汉最大城中村华安里的村民发起示威，阻断交通抗议“房票”拆迁，抵制“越拆越穷”，一度与维稳警察发生冲突。
今年五月，武汉政府正式启动华安里拆迁征收，涉及土地面积高达314.37亩。据村民透露，此次拆迁不光赔偿标准低，还没有现金赔偿，而是用“房票”代替，因此遭到村民一致反对。
On the morning of July 4, residents of Hua’anli—Wuhan’s largest urban village, often referred to as the city’s own “Kowloon Walled City”—launched a protest, blocking traffic to oppose the government’s “housing voucher” compensation scheme for demolition. The protesters resisted what they called “demolition that only makes us poorer,” and at one point clashed with stability maintenance police.
In May this year, the Wuhan government officially initiated the demolition and land acquisition of Hua’anli, involving a land area of 314.37 mu. According to local residents, the compensation offered is not only low but also does not include any cash payment—instead, they are being issued housing vouchers, a policy that has drawn unanimous opposition from the community.