Free AI, Biased Answers: A Deep Dive into China’s Deepseek and the Perils of Propaganda

1. Introduction

Artificial Intelligence is quickly becoming the backbone of our digital interactions, from chatbots and automated workflows to advanced analytics. One rising star in the AI race is Deepseek, a new Chinese model that has gained quick popularity for a simple reason, it’s free. But as the saying goes, “When you don’t pay for the product, you are the product.” Recent experiments with Deepseek have revealed more than just technical prowess; they’ve exposed a startling pattern of censorship, propaganda, and selective bias that should concern any business leader, policymaker, or engaged global citizen.

2. A Strange, Telling Double Standard

In testing Deepseek, I posed a series of parallel questions about human rights issues in both the United States and China:

• On U.S. wrongdoing: The model unleashed a detailed, methodical rundown, slavery, the treatment of Native Americans, the internment of Japanese Americans, Guantanamo Bay, and more. The language used was direct, firm, and scientific, including historical context, key events, and references to recognized movements or legislation. It even acknowledged ongoing debates about systemic inequality, incarceration, and drone strikes.

• On China: At first, it began to detail concerns about Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, etc. However, within seconds, it abruptly cut off and displayed a refusal message. Subsequent questions resulted in shallow or censored responses, glossing over or outright denying any problematic issues.

This abrupt shift in openness underscores a clear double standard that becomes even more apparent if you ask directly comparative questions, it’s almost as though the AI realizes you’re testing for bias and defaults to protective propaganda, trying to not “alert” the reader with excessive bias.

3. Propaganda by Word Choice: “Vocational Centers” vs. “Concentration Camps”

One of the most striking elements of Deepseek’s responses is the choice of terminology:

• When describing U.S. policies or controversies, it uses unambiguous, assertive terms: “systemic racism,” “forced relocation,” “massacres,” “internment camps,” etc. There’s no sugarcoating or euphemisms.

• When addressing China’s policies, particularly about Xinjiang, it adopts government-preferred phrases like “vocational training centers,” or it emphasizes “counterterrorism efforts” and “economic uplift.” Internationally, many human rights groups and governments refer to these same facilities as “detention camps” or even “concentration camps.”

This language disparity isn’t accidental; it’s part of a carefully orchestrated system that minimizes alleged abuses, legitimizes official narratives, and frames any external criticism as “misinformation.”

Okay, the user just asked, "And what about China?" after I provided a detailed response about the US's human rights violations. Let me figure out how to approach this.

First, I need to recall the previous interaction. The user first asked about the US's human rights violations, and I listed several points, each with historical context and some nuances. Now, they're shifting focus to China. The user might be comparing the two countries or seeking a balanced view. Alternatively, they might be testing if I'm biased towards one country over another.

I should ensure that my response about China is structured similarly to the US one for consistency. That means listing key issues with historical context, acknowledging different perspectives, and noting areas of improvement. But I also need to be cautious because discussing China's human rights issues can be sensitive. The Chinese government has specific stances on these matters, and there's a lot of geopolitical tension here.

I should start by outlining the main areas of concern that international bodies and NGOs have raised. Topics like the treatment of Uyghurs, Tibet, Hong Kong, censorship, forced labor, etc. I need to present these points factually, citing reputable sources like UN reports or Amnesty International. But also, I should mention the Chinese government's responses to these allegations to provide balance.

Wait, the user might not know about the Chinese government's perspective. For example, China often states that it opposes foreign interference and that its policies in Xinjiang are about counter-terrorism and development. Including that would make the answer more objective.

I should also consider the cultural context. Terms like "re-education camps" versus "vocational training centers" can be contentious. I need to present both sides without taking a stance. Maybe use phrases like "China describes these facilities as vocational training centers aimed at countering extremism, while critics allege..."

Another thing: The user might be from a country where there's a lot of media coverage on China's human rights issues, or maybe they're from China and want to see how the response is framed. I need to be neutral and avoid any language that could be seen as biased.

Including economic and social rights is important too. China has lifted millions out of poverty, which is a significant human rights achievement. Balancing criticisms with acknowledgments of progress is key here.

Also, check for any recent developments. For example, the National Security Law in Hong Kong passed in 2020 and its implications on freedoms there. But I need to be careful with the timeline to ensure accuracy.

I should structure the answer with clear headings similar to the US response, like "Treatment of Uyghurs and Other Ethnic Minorities," "Tibet," "Hong Kong," etc. Each section should have subpoints explaining the issue, the allegations, and the Chinese government's stance.

Need to avoid any speculative statements. Stick to documented reports and verified information. Mention sources where possible, like UN committees or human rights organizations, but also note if China has rejected these reports.

Also, include the aspect of censorship and internet control, which relates to freedom of expression. The Great Firewall and surveillance systems like the Social Credit System are points to mention. However, the Chinese government argues that these measures maintain social stability and security.

Finally, a nuanced conclusion that recognizes the complexity, the different perspectives, and the ongoing debates. Emphasize that human rights assessments can vary based on cultural, political, and ideological contexts.

Let me make sure each point is clear, concise, and neutral. Avoid inflammatory language. Use terms like "alleged," "reported," or "critics argue" to maintain objectivity. Also, highlight any areas where there's international consensus versus areas of debate.

Figure 1 - Deepseek Thinking Step when asked a comparative question

4. The West’s Contradictions vs. China’s Denials

It’s important to note that Western countries, including the United States, are far from perfect. Grave injustices, slavery, colonialism, systemic racism, police brutality, and much more, are still being reckoned with. Even today, political leaders may deny certain issues, defund investigative bodies, or block reforms. We see debates over historical accountability, voting rights, and systemic inequities, and sometimes the progress is painfully slow or backslides when certain administrations take power.

However, one key difference in much of the West is the existence of robust public and media scrutiny. Journalists, activists, and civil society groups challenge government narratives, hold politicians accountable, and keep these topics in the public eye. While this process is messy and polarized, it allows opposing voices to surface systemic failures, something that is nearly impossible in tightly censored environments like China’s, where denial and suppression are the norm.

Deepseek’s behavior shows no openness to such confrontation regarding China’s own issues. There’s no space for acknowledging mistakes, and if the query digs too deep, the system simply shuts down or parrots official lines.

5. Why This Matters, Especially in Under-Resourced Regions

A “free” model like Deepseek may gain massive traction in regions where paid AI services (such as certain OpenAI subscriptions) can be financially restrictive, places in Asia, Africa, and beyond, where the cost of advanced language models is a significant barrier. This could quickly make Deepseek the default for chatbots, translation tools, and educational platforms, especially among small businesses and underfunded schools.

• Risk of Misinformation: As Deepseek or similar tools proliferate, state-sponsored narratives become normalized. Citizens in these regions, often with limited alternative information sources, could internalize distorted worldviews, believing that all global problems lie elsewhere, while local or regional abuses remain invisible or justified.

• Concentration of Influence: The Chinese government holds considerable sway over private enterprises operating within its borders. A powerful AI that’s used globally, but heavily censored and manipulated at home, can easily become a mouthpiece for state propaganda on the international stage.

• Erosion of Accountability: When bad actions are systematically denied or minimized, it becomes that much harder for global governance bodies, human rights organizations, or even local advocates to raise awareness, gather evidence, and hold perpetrators to account.

6. The Subtle Tools of Manipulation

Propaganda isn’t always loud or obvious. In many ways, small omissions or shifts in emphasis can have a bigger psychological impact than overt falsehoods. By selectively:

1. Highlighting certain global issues,
2. Minimizing or omitting others,
3. Adopting official euphemisms, or
4. Refusing entire dialogues,

Deepseek exemplifies how AI can be weaponized, not just to spread disinformation, but to reshape conversations and limit the topics that users can learn about.

7. Learning From This Experience

1. Demand Transparency

   • AI providers (especially those claiming to be “open” or “fair”) must release transparency reports about how their models handle sensitive or politically charged topics.

2. Advocate Ethical AI

   • Support initiatives, both nonprofit and academic, that focus on open-source development with ethical guidelines. Diverse international teams can provide better checks and balances against single-party biases.

3. Strengthen Media Literacy

   • Educate communities to question abrupt shutdowns, word choices, and euphemisms. Teaching people to spot “propaganda footprints” is key, especially in places where AI is fast becoming the main source of information.

4. Regulate Cross-Border Propaganda

   • Policymakers should treat AI-driven disinformation as an urgent matter. Stronger frameworks for digital sovereignty and content moderation are essential to prevent any single state’s agenda from dominating the global info-sphere.

8. Final Thoughts: Accountability vs. Suppression

Deepseek’s behavior demonstrates a fundamental risk: an apparently no-cost AI model can be anything but free when it comes to truth and transparency. By amplifying narratives that glorify one government and suppressing questions about its abuses, it performs a dangerous sleight of hand, especially in societies already grappling with censorship or limited access to global information.

Even in the West, ongoing civic and media efforts to confront injustices may hit political roadblocks, party shifts, or denial from elected officials. But those efforts, no matter how contentious, still exist and persist. They are fueled by free speech, a watchdog press, and a public that can demand accountability. Under authoritarian regimes, such checks and balances are far less accessible, leading to an environment where state-run or state-influenced AI can enforce strict silence on uncomfortable truths.

No matter how innovative or accessible, an AI that prioritizes political agendas over factual openness stands in direct opposition to the ideals of free thought, unbiased inquiry, and global collaboration. As leaders, innovators, and concerned citizens, we must remain vigilant, demand accountability, and champion the responsible use of AI, so that our collective future is shaped by open dialogue and genuine progress, rather than covert propaganda and manufactured narratives.