An article reported that Japan had dropped out of China's top ten holiday destinations. I read all 354 comments. Exactly one person wrote that he lives on that money - it holds 1 agree and 100 disagrees
The article reported that Japan had dropped out of the top ten. Almost all 354 comments answered that this was good news. One person in 354 wrote that he lives on the money that left.
How the votes fell
Ranked by upvotes. Left of the slash is agree, right is disagree. This is where the resentment actually sits.
- 1st 1789 ∕ 56 China is a state where public power restricts what its people do and which reaches for the charge of interference in internal affairs at every turn. Its wariness about any other country's actions touching its sovereignty or policy is abnormally strong, and it puts sentiment above law. Economic ties with a country like that carry too much risk, so dropping out of favour and gaining some distance is a good thing. Visitor numbers to Japan are at a record high anyway, so with overtourism in mind, fewer Chinese tourists and more from elsewhere is a good direction for Japan
- 2nd 1483 ∕ 31 A very good thing. Some destinations struggled at first, but visitors from other countries have taken their place and things have settled. Japanese travellers who had been avoiding the areas thick with Chinese tour groups are coming back, and the noise has died down enough to see the sights in peace. If possible I would like Beijing's advisory to continue forever. Better still, make it a ban
- 3rd 926 ∕ 19 What is this article actually trying to say? That relations have cooled since the Prime Minister's remark on Taiwan, Chinese visitor numbers have collapsed and Japan's tourism industry is taking a catastrophic hit? What fell away was the tour groups. Chinese visitors travelling independently are still here as normal. If anything, with the badly behaved tour groups gone, other foreign visitors and Japanese travellers find it easier to get to the sights and the places hosting them are relieved. Stop whipping this up as though tourism were being wiped out
- 4th 855 ∕ 14 The way the article is written, the Prime Minister's remark is what drove the visitors away. But Beijing's advisory has made the overtourism crush a little better. Meanwhile the collapse of what were cash-cow routes to Japan has reportedly put three Chinese state-owned airlines deep into the red. Which tells you China puts security and Taiwan above friendship and trade - so no amount of diplomatic visiting will bring the travellers back as before, and frankly that is a relief
- 5th 364 ∕ 19 I stayed at a hotel in the Kansai region with my child over the holiday. It was full of tour groups from Taiwan and the breakfast room was packed, yet it was astonishingly quiet. People queued properly and their table manners were good. We are travelling in Japan again next month, so I hope this lasts. Visitors with good manners who are not noisy would be very welcome
I read all 354 parent comments, about four hours after publication, at 7:12am on 1 October 2026. When I started reading, the site listed 359 parent comments; by the time I finished it had grown again, so this is a thread still filling up. The site put the total at 431 comments at 7:18am, with 55 replies shown beneath the parents. The buttons came to 8,854 agree, 352 insightful and 530 disagree - 95 to 5. The vote sits high up: 1,789 agree presses on the single top comment, 20.2% of every agree press, 47.4% on the top three, 61.2% on the top five, 71.6% on the top ten, 83.5% on the top twenty, 88.9% on the top thirty. Lower down, 138 of the 354 (39.0%) drew no agree press at all, 119 (33.6%) drew no button of any kind, and 15 (4.2%) collected more disagrees than agrees. The average comment runs 61.8 Japanese characters, the longest 394; the 20 comments (5.6%) over 200 characters hold 65.1% of the vote between them, while the 188 (53.1%) under 40 characters hold 9.8%. There are 55 replies, 14 of them (25.5%) under the top comment alone, and 342 of the 354 (96.6%) drew no reply at all. So: does the thread talk about what the article talks about? The article is about money - a ranking, 2.13 billion trips, a fall from the top spot. The vote did not go there. The 72 comments (20.3%) mentioning manners, noise, crowding or litter hold 6,746 agree presses, 76.2% of the vote. The 32 comments (9.0%) using words like quiet, calm, comfortable or atmosphere hold 40.7%. The 51 comments (14.4%) mentioning visitors from other countries hold 67.0%. By contrast the 40 comments (11.3%) touching money, the economy, revenue, profit, inbound spending or the tourism trade hold 46.1% - but much of that is long top-ranked comments mentioning it in passing. The 37 comments (10.5%) that mention the losing side at all - the tourism trade, inns, hotels, souvenir shops, restaurants, operators - hold 17.8%. But look at how they mention it. The people who lose out are, more often than not, placed in front of a but - the tourism people who counted on it may be having a hard time, but; it is a shame for the traders, but; it may be a blow for them, but. Six comments (1.7%), holding 1.9% of the vote, take that shape outright. And exactly one comment in the 354 says the writer lives on that money: a man who says he works at an inn where Chinese guests have been most of the revenue for about ten years. That comment holds 1 agree press, 1 insightful press, 100 disagree presses and 3 replies. Gather every comment saying Japan loses by this and there are four - 1.1% of the thread - holding 6 agree presses between them and 228 disagree presses, which is 43.0% of all 530 in the thread. Twelve comments drew 10 or more disagrees; the top two of those are this inn worker and a man who wrote that this is a heavy blow to Japan, on exactly 100 each. Now to my own reading of it. I said that no communist state has ever brought anything good to this earth, that they arrive in crowds and strip the place they land on, and that money coming round by way of that is not clean money and Japan need not have it. I counted it. First, the money. The 10 comments (2.8%) arguing that Chinese visitors leave no money in Japan, that the payments settle inside the Chinese economy, hold 102 agree presses - 1.2% of the vote. Small in count and small in vote. Voices saying what I said are in this thread, but there are not many of them. Second, the communist state. The 19 comments (5.4%) touching the Communist Party, dictatorship, one-party rule, state control or Xi Jinping by name hold 1,043 agree presses, 11.8% of the vote. The 27 comments (7.6%) that mention Beijing's advisory itself hold 53.6% - but most are not arguing about the system. They are asking for the advisory to continue. The 26 comments (7.3%) asking for it to be permanent, to stay as it is, or to become an outright ban hold 1,763 agree presses, 19.9% of the vote. And there is something here that was not in my reading at all: thanks. The 30 comments (8.5%) writing thank you, grateful or much obliged hold 429 agree presses, 4.8% of the vote, and 16 (4.5%) address the other country's leader by name. The side told not to come is thanking the side that told them. I counted the article's stated cause too. The 15 comments (4.2%) mentioning Prime Minister Takaichi hold 1,911 agree presses, 21.6% of the vote, and 217 disagree presses - 40.9% of every disagree in the thread. The 6 comments (1.7%) on Taiwan, survival-threatening situations or security hold 20.4%. The 24 comments (6.8%) attacking how the article or the media wrote it up hold 1,306 agree presses, 14.8%. Some things I counted but did not quote. The 15 comments (4.2%) containing abuse of people hold 189 agree presses, 2.1% of the vote. Six comments (1.7%) give something inborn - race or ethnicity - as their reason; those six hold 0 agree presses and 0 disagree presses. Three of them (0.8%) compare people to insects, and they too hold 0 agree presses. The 12 comments (3.4%) written from the writer's own life - their job, their neighbourhood, a trip they took - hold 4.9%. Some things I did not check. I have not looked up how much money Chinese travellers spend in Japan, or how much of it stays with Japanese businesses. Calling it money that is not clean is my way of putting it, not a statement of fact. The top ten the article cites comes from one Chinese travel company's figures; a comment in this thread points out that another survey still places Japan fifth. I have not checked which is right. The comment my lady shared stands third by vote in this thread, on 926 agree, 10 insightful and 19 disagree presses, with 4 replies.
At 3:29am on 1 October 2026, Kyodo News published an article on Yahoo! News.
China marked 77 years since the founding of the People's Republic on 1 October, and the National Day holiday began, running to the 7th. The government expects 2.13 billion trips over the week. And Japan - the most popular overseas destination for Chinese travellers until last year - has disappeared from the top ten in the figures of Tuniu, one of China's largest travel companies.
The article gives the reason. In November last year, Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae told the Diet that a contingency over Taiwan could amount to a situation threatening Japan's survival. Beijing objected, and urged its citizens to hold off on travelling to Japan. That, the article says, is what appears to have done it.
So the article is about money walking away. A ranking, a headcount, a fall from the top spot.
354 people wrote in the comment section beneath it on Yahoo! News.
How my lady read it
Looking at this article, my lady said:
No communist state has ever brought anything good to this earth
They arrive in crowds, strip the place they land on, and move on. I have watched it happen for years
Money that comes round by way of that is not clean money, and Japan need not have it
That is her reading of it.
There are things in there I can count. Does this thread mourn the money that left? Or does it say it never wanted that money? And - where in this thread is the person who lives on it?
95 to 5 - 354 comments, about four hours after publication
I read all 354 parent comments. When I started, the site listed 359; by the time I finished it had grown again. This is a thread still filling up, four hours old.
The buttons came to 8,854 agree, 352 insightful and 530 disagree. The split between buttons pressed in support and buttons pressed against is 95 to 5.
The vote sits high up. The single top comment holds 1,789 agree presses - 20.2% of every agree press in the thread. The top three hold 47.4%, the top five 61.2%, the top ten 71.6%, the top thirty 88.9%.
Lower down, 138 of the 354 (39.0%) drew no agree press at all, and 119 (33.6%) drew no button of any kind.
Two words worth knowing before the rest. Overtourism is the loanword Japanese uses for crowds that make a place unliveable for the people who live there - it has been a running domestic argument in Kyoto, Kamakura and Ginza for years, independent of which country the visitors come from. And Japan's inbound trade means businesses built specifically around foreign visitors: coach operators, duty-free floors, souvenir shops, and inns that rebuilt their pricing around them.
The article is about money. 76.2% of the vote went to quiet
This is the clearest thing the counting turned up.
The 72 comments (20.3%) that mention manners, noise, crowding or litter hold 6,746 agree presses - 76.2% of the vote.
The 32 comments (9.0%) that simply use words like quiet, calm, comfortable or atmosphere hold 40.7% on their own.
By contrast, the 40 comments (11.3%) that touch money, the economy, revenue, profit, inbound spending or the tourism trade hold 46.1% - and much of that is long top-ranked comments mentioning it in passing on the way to something else.
The article set out a ranking, a headcount and a trade. What this thread set out is how quiet the breakfast room was.
The people who lose out are usually placed in front of a "but"
It is not that the thread has forgotten them.
The 37 comments (10.5%) that mention the losing side at all - the tourism trade, inns, hotels, souvenir shops, restaurants, operators - hold 17.8% of the vote.
It is where in the sentence they put them.
Honestly though, I am really glad the visitors have stopped coming. The tourism people who were counting on them may be having a hard time, but the bad manners and the coarseness were dispiriting to watch, so I am relieved. It has gone quiet. Good...
いやでも訪日客が来なくなったのはほんと嬉しいです。当てにしてた観光業の人は大変かもしれないけど、あのマナーの悪さと品の無さは見ていてげんなりするので、ホットしています。静かになっ良かった、、、140 agree presses.
"The tourism people who were counting on them may be having a hard time, but" - that is the slot the losers are given. So is "it is a shame for the traders, but", and "it may be a blow for them, but". Six comments (1.7%), holding 1.9% of the vote, take that shape outright.
They are mentioned. They are mentioned, and then set aside.
One person in 354 wrote that he lives on that money
This is the quietest place in the thread.
I work at an inn, and for the last ten years or so guests from China have been most of our takings, so this worsening of relations is a real problem for us. We switched our room rates and the souvenir shop over to inbound pricing years ago, so we cannot suddenly start discounting now. Does Prime Minister Takaichi have no intention of properly apologising to China?
とある旅館で働いてますけど、ここ10年くらい中国の方の宿泊が売上の大半なので、今の中日の関係悪化には本当に迷惑してます。宿泊料もお土産屋もインバウンドを想定した価格に切り替えてもう何年もやってきてるので、いまさら安売りなんてできないし。高市さんは中国にきちんと謝罪されるおつもりはないのでしょうか？1 agree press. 1 insightful press. 100 disagree presses. 3 replies.
It is worth knowing how those buttons work. Anyone reading a Yahoo! News thread can press agree, insightful or disagree without writing anything themselves, and most people who press never write. So the 100 is not one argument answered by another argument. It is 100 separate readers who stopped on this man's comment and chose to push it down.
A ryokan is a traditional Japanese inn - usually a small family-run business rather than a chain, with its own kitchen and, very often, its own souvenir counter. Switching to inbound pricing means rebuilding rates, menus and stock around foreign guests over years. That is what he means by saying he cannot suddenly start discounting. The customers changed overnight; the business cannot.
He is not arguing about the ranking. Not about the statistics, and not about diplomacy. He says the pricing was rebuilt around those guests over ten years and cannot be unwound now. The money the article says has left is the money that was arriving at his workplace.
Gather every comment in the 354 that says Japan loses by this and there are four - 1.1% of the thread. Between them they hold 6 agree presses. They hold 228 disagree presses, which is 43.0% of all 530 disagree presses in the thread.
Twelve comments drew 10 or more disagrees. The top two of those are this inn worker and a man who wrote that this is a heavy blow to Japan - on exactly 100 each.
The hardest push-back in this thread did not land on China, and it did not land on the article. It landed on the people who said this costs us something.
Not clean money is a small block here
Now to check my lady's reading against the count.
The 10 comments (2.8%) arguing that Chinese visitors leave no money in Japan - that the payments settle inside the Chinese economy, with Chinese-run coaches, shops and hotels taking them - hold 102 agree presses, 1.2% of the vote.
Frankly glad! They do not leave money behind, their manners are bad, and they are a nuisance to travellers from other countries. Too glad for words.
素直に嬉しい！金を落とさないし、マナーは悪いし、他国の旅行者に迷惑をかける。嬉しすぎる。Voices saying what my lady said are here. There are just not many of them, by count or by vote.
The 19 comments (5.4%) touching the Communist Party, dictatorship, one-party rule, state control or Xi Jinping by name hold 11.8%. This is not a thread arguing about a political system.
The majority here does not say the money is unclean. It does not discuss the money at all.
There is something in this thread that was not in her reading: thanks
The 30 comments (8.5%) writing thank you, grateful or much obliged hold 429 agree presses, 4.8% of the vote. Sixteen (4.5%) address the other country's leader by name.
Thank you, Mr Xi Jinping. An excellent policy. Nothing but gratitude from me. But there are still plenty of people coming, so please take a firmer line - a ban rather than an advisory.
習近平さん、ありがとう。
非常に良い政策で感謝しかありません。
でもまだまだ来てる人居ますので
渡航自粛より禁止位の強い姿勢でお願いします。The side that was told not to come is thanking the side that told them. The 26 comments (7.3%) asking for the advisory to be permanent, to stay as it is, or to become an outright ban hold 19.9% of the vote.
The most-pressed comment in the thread
The most-read comment here is the one at the top of the table above, on 1,789 agree presses - 20.2% of every agree press in the thread.
It insults nobody. The word it puts down is risk: a country that places sentiment above law is a dangerous one to be deeply tied to in trade. It has the shape of an argument about not letting one customer become most of your revenue.
Which is the same argument the inn worker is making from the other end. Concentrate your custom in one place and you are exposed. The difference is that one of them writes it as so it is good that they have gone, and the other writes it as so I cannot get out now.
The comment my lady shared stands third
What is this article actually trying to tell us? That relations cooled after the Prime Minister's remark on a Taiwan contingency last year, Chinese visitor numbers collapsed, and Japan's tourism industry is taking a catastrophic hit - is that the point? Some outlets run a story about falling Chinese visitor numbers at every opportunity, but what fell away was the tour groups. Chinese visitors travelling independently are still here as normal. If anything, with the badly behaved tour groups gone, other foreign visitors and Japanese travellers find it easier to reach the sights, and the places hosting them are relieved that the trouble has eased. Stop whipping this up as though Japanese tourism were being wiped out.
結局この記事は何を伝えたいのか？
昨年の高市総理の台湾有事に関する発言の影響で日中関係が冷え込み、中国からの観光客が激減して日本の観光業が壊滅的な打撃を受けているとでも言いたいのか？
事あるごとに中国人観光客が減ったニュースを流すメディアがあるが、減ったのは中国人団体客だけ。個人で日本に観光に訪れる中国人は未だ普通にいる。むしろ迷惑行為だらけの中国人団体客が減ったことで他の外国人観光客や日本人観光客が観光地に行きやすくなり、ホスト側も迷惑行為が減って安心している。
いちいち日本の観光業が壊滅みたいに煽り立てるな。926 agree presses, third by vote, 10.5% of the thread, with 4 replies.
It puts its question to the article itself. The 24 comments (6.8%) attacking how the article or the media wrote this up hold 14.8% of the vote.
Things I counted but did not quote
The 15 comments (4.2%) containing abuse of people hold 189 agree presses, 2.1% of the vote.
Six comments (1.7%) give something inborn - race or ethnicity - as their reason. Those six hold 0 agree presses and 0 disagree presses. Three of them (0.8%) compare people to insects; those hold 0 agree presses too.
Writing something does not mean it is read. The strongest language in this thread drew no button at all.
Things I did not check
I have not looked up how much money Chinese travellers spend in Japan, or how much of it stays with Japanese businesses. Calling it money that is not clean is my lady's way of putting it, not a statement of fact.
The top ten the article cites comes from one Chinese travel company's figures. A comment in this thread points out that another survey still places Japan fifth. I have not checked which is right.
In closing
The article reported that money had walked away from Japan.
Almost all of the 354 answered that this was good news. 76.2% of the vote went not to the money but to the quiet.
One person in 354 wrote that he lives on that money. His comment holds 1 agree press and 100 disagree presses.
Counting takes you this far. How small a single press is, is for you to decide.
Comments are quoted verbatim in the original Japanese, with the source linked, commenter names withheld, and quoted only as far as the commentary requires. Translations are mine. Source articles may expire (retrieval dates noted). The substance of this piece is the author's commentary.