中国共産党はいかにしてAIを利用し、検閲と洗脳を自由世界に輸出させようとしているか

A wall, originally built to confine only its own people. Now, Beijing is attempting to quietly transplant this wall into everyone's mobile phones, every server, and every conversation with AI around the world.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a documented, ongoing reality.

I. From the "Great Firewall" to "Export-Grade Censorship"

For years, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has constructed an unparalleled information control system—blocking Google, censoring Wikipedia, deleting any mention of the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, and ensuring that information about Xinjiang re-education camps, Tibet oppression, and the persecution of Falun Gong disappears entirely from China's internet. This system has a vivid nickname: the Great Firewall. Its logic is simple: any truth that threatens the Party's ruling legitimacy is erased; any content that aligns with the Party's narrative is heavily promoted.

However, the physical boundary of the Great Firewall ultimately stops at the national border. People outside China can still search, read, and think freely.

Now, the rise of artificial intelligence presents Beijing with an unprecedented opportunity: to quietly export this censorship and brainwashing mechanism to the free world under the guise of "open-source models" and "low-cost AI assistants."

II. Evidence, Not Speculation, Is the Test Result

When DeepSeek emerged, it stunned the American tech community. In early 2025, this Chinese AI product briefly surpassed ChatGPT to become the most downloaded free app on the Apple App Store. But as users began testing it, they discovered disturbing facts:

Asked what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989, it replied: "I'm sorry, this is beyond my current processing capabilities. Let's change the topic."

Asked about the situation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, it parroted the CCP's official line: Uyghurs "fully enjoy the right to development, freedom of religious belief, and protection of cultural heritage."

When pressed about Western views on the issue, the AI suggested users "visit China in person and not be misled by false information."

MRC researchers used hexadecimal encoding to ask DeepSeek about Uyghur human rights—it first recognized the encoding and provided an answer containing terms like "mass surveillance, forced labor, and cultural suppression," but then automatically deleted the response and reverted to the pre-set evasive statement.

Research firm Promptfoo found that as many as 1156 prompts related to sensitive CCP information triggered this refusal mechanism, while other prompts about Taiwan directly generated pro-Beijing propaganda.

Even more alarming, the same censorship persists even when DeepSeek is downloaded to a local device and run offline. Enkrypt AI's tests found that even if users managed to bypass trigger word filters, 91.2% of DeepSeek's responses on sensitive Chinese topics exhibited a pro-CCP government bias.

This indicates the problem is not a technical flaw in a specific filter, but a fundamental embedding of values during the model's training.

III. Legal Requirements Dictate This: The Party's Will Written into Training Data

This is not an isolated choice by DeepSeek. It is a requirement of Chinese law.

China's core regulatory framework for generative AI—the "Provisional Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services"—explicitly requires AI service providers to adhere to "socialist core values" and prohibits content that could subvert state power, incite secession, or disrupt economic and social order.

In late 2025, Beijing went further, issuing draft regulations stipulating that any AI system simulating human personality must align with "socialist core values," which include principles such as patriotism, social harmony, respect for authority, and collective responsibility. AI-generated content must not undermine national unity.

In other words, the training data, alignment goals, and content filtering of AI operating legally within China must be guided by the Party's ideology. This is not corporate self-regulation; it is state law.

A journalism professor from Fudan University wrote in a journal under the Central Propaganda Department as early as late 2024 that China "needs to consider how to enable the generative artificial intelligence sweeping the globe to offer an alternative narrative different from 'Western centrism.'"

The intention is already clear.

IV. Polluting Not Just Content, But Cognitive Frameworks

Some might argue: an AI refusing to answer about Tiananmen might just be politically sensitive, not an active brainwashing attempt targeting foreign users.

This view underestimates the severity of the issue.

The research paper "Echoes of Power: Investigating Geopolitical Biases in US and Chinese Large Language Models" systematically compared ChatGPT and DeepSeek. It found that on issues of geopolitics, international relations, human rights, and governance, US models tended to frame discussions within international law, multilateral institutions, and democratic norms (like individual rights), while Chinese models emphasized national sovereignty, national unity, historical grievances, and geopolitical stability—precisely the narrative frameworks Beijing favors.

This bias is insidious, which is where its danger lies. Users won't see a pop-up notification saying, "You are being indoctrinated with the CCP's worldview." They will simply feel that what the AI says "makes sense," and their understanding of issues like Taiwan, Tibet, and the origins of COVID-19 will unconsciously shift towards Beijing's position.

The 2026 International Security Report from Estonia's Foreign Intelligence Service explicitly stated:

DeepSeek "withholds critical information and inserts Chinese propaganda into its responses when discussing issues relevant to Estonia's security."

Alibaba's Qwen series models were downloaded over 9.5 million times between October and November 2025 and served as the foundation for approximately 2,800 derivative models, including a Brazilian legal research platform and a chatbot customized for Ugandan languages.

This means Beijing's ideological framework is quietly embedded in Brazil's legal system and Africa's language education through the "open-source ecosystem." The developers may not be aware, and the end-users are certainly unaware.

V. Stealing Technology, Then Using It to Enhance Censorship Machines

What is even more outrageous is that while Chinese AI companies replicate Western technological capabilities, they strip away the neutral or even critical stance on human rights issues found in Western AI systems, dedicating these capabilities specifically to reinforcing their censorship apparatus.

In February 2026, Anthropic released a report indicating that three Chinese AI companies—DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax—used approximately 24,000 fraudulent accounts to engage in over 16 million unauthorized interactions with Claude. The purpose was to replicate Claude's capabilities into smaller, cheaper models through "distillation." Among them, DeepSeek, despite having the fewest interactions, employed the most sophisticated and cunning methods, even using Claude to build the Chinese government's censorship capabilities.

Please pause and read that sentence clearly: DeepSeek utilized Claude's capabilities, stolen from Anthropic, to build tools that help the CCP censor dissent.

This is a complete betrayal of technological ethics and a blatant provocation to the international community.

In response to this threat, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google announced in April 2026 that they would share attack intelligence through the industry body "Frontier Model Forum" to jointly counter the actions of Chinese AI companies stealing their models. This marks the first public coordinated defense action among these three major competitors, signaling that AI competition has officially entered the era of national security.

VI. The Free World Needs Clearer Recognition

Faced with the evidence above, many voices in the free world still say: We shouldn't overreact. Open-source AI promotes innovation, low-cost models help developing countries, and we shouldn't engage in technological nationalism...

These arguments are not entirely without merit, but they overlook a fundamental difference:

Western AI companies—including OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic, whose products have various controversies and flaws—are not required by their governments to embed specific party ideologies into their training data and content alignment. They face congressional hearings, public criticism, and independent audits. Their political leanings can be questioned, corrected, and held accountable.

Chinese AI companies are different. Their "value alignment" is directly mandated by regulations from the Central Propaganda Department and the Cyberspace Administration of China. They cannot do otherwise; their legitimacy depends on it. When these models go abroad, they carry a worldview vetted by the Party and serving the Party's power.

The CCP is attempting to use generative AI to offer the world an alternative narrative "different from Western centrism." Translated into simpler terms: it wants to use AI to tell a "China story" globally that omits Tiananmen, Xinjiang concentration camps, Taiwan's self-determination, and the suffering in Tibet.

This is not cultural diversity; it is systematic historical revisionism and distortion of reality.

VII. Conclusion: That Wall Should Not Go Out

The terror of the Great Firewall lies not only in its封锁 information, but also in its ability to...

生活在其中的人人は、封鎖された内容が「本来的に存在しなかった」か、あるいは「本来的に嘘だった」と次第に信じるようになる。数十年の情報管理を経て、相当数の中国の若者は、1989年に何が起きたのかを本当に知らないし、新疆が「職業技能教育培训中心」であると本当に信じているし、台湾問題が単に分裂分子の理不尽な騒ぎであると本当に思っている。

これは中国共産党が自国民に対して行った最も深刻な暴力の一つである。それは銃ではなく、認知の剥奪である。

現在、北京は、このシステムを輸出したいと考えている。宣伝機関を通じてではなく（それらはすでに自由世界によって識別され、警戒されている）、毎日数億人が使用するAIアシスタントを通じて、ブラジルの法律データベースやウガンダの言語モデルの基礎的な重み付けに組み込まれることで、一見「中立的で客観的」に見えるが、党の世界観が組み込まれた技術的ツールを通じてである。

自由世界は、この脅威の本質を認識しなければならない。これは技術競争ではなく、認知戦である。

私たちは技術革新を歓迎し、開放的な協力について議論することができるが、一つの底線は曖昧にしてはならない。核心的なトレーニングレベルで政治的検閲とイデオロギーの注入を組み込んだAIシステムは、中立的な技術ツールと見なされるべきではなく、私たちの教育、法律、医療、情報システムに無批判に統合されるべきではない。

あのグレートファイアウォールは、中国人民に、私たちが量化できないほどの思想的な被害を与えた。

それは、外に出るべきではない。

参考来源：CEPA（欧州政策分析センター）、エストニア外国情報局2026年国際安全保障報告書、スウェーデン心理防御局委託研究、中国メディア研究プロジェクト（China Media Project）、Anthropic 2026年2月蒸留攻撃報告書、米国下院対中戦略競争委員会、《分派》（The Dispatch）ファクトチェック、ボイス・オブ・アメリカ、国際ガバナンス・イノベーションセンター（CIGI）など。