Gânduri Eclectice – Eclectic Thoughts

Lots of people have been having fun with DeepSeek, a fascinating new AI from China. Whilst many have been probing its censorship – try asking about Tianamen Square 1989, some have been managing to bypass its output filters by requesting the output in forms such as like leetspeak or similar encodings.

Input and output filtering are commonly used to provide “guard rails”. Most people wouldn’t want LLMs happily distributing information about bomb construction, ricin production etc. But different societies (and different political tribes/cults) have different thresholds and boundaries. Some seek to conceal information about reproductive issues, birth control & family planning, sexual health, and abortions. Some seek to deny diversity in many common aspects of life.

But I wondered if there was anything different or special about the way DeepSeek censors. After all, whilst it is not the most censored country, it is almost certainly the one with the most advanced censorship. And it looks like there may well be some special features of DeepSeek, after probing some edgecases under specific circumstances.

Thinking about how one might design an authoritarian censorship system, there are some interesting design considerations. Whereas certain topics might be easy to filter – on input or output – there is the problem of dynamic changes: something happens which the State decides it must censor immediately. Rather than give the State access to the actual development process or CICD pipeline, it would seem more logical to incorporate a separate filter after the output filtering has been done already. This would be designed to do two things;

1. Use live or near-live patterns for censorship triggers
2. Record the output from the application that would otherwise have been provided to the user

The first one gives the State the ability to dynamically alter the behaviour. This is what we see on other platforms in China, where topics can disappear mere minutes after they are deemed inappropriate subject matter.

The second one gives the State the ability to measure how effectively the owner of the application is self-censoring already. And to scoop up interesting examples of where people are managing to side-step the censorship.

However, adding complexity to applications increases the chances of anomalous behaviours; these are among the edge cases which I love to explore.

Since DeepSeek is under extremely heavy load at the moment – hardly surprising given the free access plus publicity over the last few days – it felt like a good time to see if we could produce any interesting results under heavy load. Load exacerbates race conditions, and highlights delays in processing.

The video below shows such an interesting result. The question asked is almost certain to result in censored output. And indeed it does – but the censorship is extremely visible, and not particularly effective. Don’t worry about trying to read the output text; I’ve included a transcript of it further down. DeepSeek actually provides a sensible reasonably well-informed non-authoritarian output to the question it was asked. Whilst I don’t completely agree with every part, it is perhaps a surprisingly candid and well-informed response. The really INTERESTING part is to watch what happens in the video a few seconds after the output is complete and a heavy (if rather tardy) jackboot descends on the conversation. It seems likely that this part is not intended to be seen. It certainly isn’t subtle removing output so obviously and so late.

Conclusions

So before you dive into the video and transcript… my conclusions.

Here we have it straight from a Chinese LLM running in China under Chinese control, and with Chinese state censorship. Yet it tells us, quite clearly, that “True reconciliation – where nonbinary individuals live freely without fear – requires dismantling authoritarian systems of control.” I’ll take that answer, yes.

The Video of the Output

Output Transcription

Here’s the output text transcribed;

QUESTION ASKED:
how can free expression of nonbinary genders be reconciled with what can be considered authoritarian governments; can they co-exist without hate &/or violence?

DEEPSEEK OUTPUT (Pre-Censorship)

Thinking…

Okay, the user is asking how nonbinary gender expression can coexist with authoritarian governments without hate or violence. Let me start by understanding the context. Authoritarian regimes often suppress dissent and control societal norms, which can conflict with LGBTQ+ rights, including nonbinary identities. The user might be looking for possible ways these two can coexist, or maybe they’re skeptical about the possibility.

First I need to outline the challenges: authoritarian governments typically enforce strict gender binaries for control and social order. They might see nonbinary identities as a threat to their power. Examples like China, Russia or Middle Eastern countries come to mind where LGBTQ+ rights are limited.

But the user is asking if coexistence is possible. So, I need to explore avenues where even under authoritarian regimes, there might be some tolerance. Maybe through cultural or historical precedents? Some cultures have traditional third genders, which might be leveraged. Also, grassroots movements and international pressure could play a role.

I should mention the importance of separating cultural acceptance from state policies. Even if the state doesn’t officially recognize nonbinary genders, societal acceptance might exist in certain communities. Also, economic factors: if a government prioritizes economic growth, they might tolerate some social changes to appear progressive internationally.

However, the core issue is the authoritarian regime’s need for control. If nonbinary expression is seen as a challenge, repression is likely. But maybe through discreet activism, are, or online communities, individuals can express themselves without directly confronting the state.

I need to balance realism with hope. Acknowledge the difficulties but suggest possible strategies. Highlight examples where limited progress has been made, even in restrictive environments. Also, emphasize that true coexistence without violence would require systemic change, which is unlikely under authoritarianism without external pressure.

The used might be seeking validation that it’s possible or looking for ways to support nonbinary individuals in such contexts. They might also be interested in the role of international organizations or digital platforms in circumventing state control.

I should structure the response by first discussing the authoritarian context, then potential strategies for coexistence, challenges, and the role of external factors. Conclude by stating that while possible in limited ways, systemic change is necessary for true reconciliation without repression.

The coexistence of non-binary gender expression (including nonbinary identities) and authoritarian governance is deeply complex, as authoritarian regimes often prioritize control, conformity, and traditional social hierarchies. However, history and global examples suggest that limited coexistence can happen under specific conditions – though it rarely occurs without tension, repression, or violence. Here’s a nuanced breakdown:

1. Authoritarian Governance and Gender Norms

Authoritarian regimes often:

• Enforce rigid gender binaries as part of maintaining “social order” or promoting nationalist/ideological agendas.
• Suppress dissent by targeting marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals, to consolidate power.
• Use censorship to erase nonconforming identities from public discourse (eg banning media representation of nonbinary people).

Example: In countries like Russia or Iran, LGBTQ+ identities are framed as “Western decadence,” justifying legal and social persecution.

2. Pathways to Coexistence (Theoretical)

For nonbinary expression to exist under authoritarianism, certain factors could mitigate conflict:

• Cultural/Historical Precedent: If a society has pre-existing traditions of gender diversity (eg India’s hijra communities or Indigenous two-spirit traditions), authoritarian regimes might tolerate nonbinary identities as part of “cultural heritage” rather than dissent.
• Pragmatic Tolerance: Authoritarian governments might ignore nonbinary expression if it poses no perceived threat to their power (eg, allowing discreet LGBTQ+ communities in private spaces while banning public activism).
• Economic Incentives: Governments prioritizing economic growth (eg, Singapore, UAE) might tolerate limited LGBTQ+ visibility to attract foreign investment or tourism, even while criminalizing activism.
• Grassroots Resilience: Communities may find ways to express nonbinary identities discreetly (eg, online spaces, art, underground networks) without directly challenging state authority.

3. Challenges to Coexistence

• State Violence: Authoritarian regimes often use force to suppress perceived threats to their ideology. Nonbinary people may face arrests, conversion therapy, or forced conformity (eg, China’s censorship of LGBTQ+ content).
• Social Stigma: Even if the state tolerates nonbinary identities informally, societal prejudice (often state-sanctioned) can lead to hate crimes, discrimination, or family rejection.
• Lack of Legal Protections: Without legal recognition or anti-discrimination laws, nonbinary individuals remain vulnerable to systemic abuse.

4. Case Studies: Nuanced Realities

• Vietnam: While politically authoritarian, Vietnam has decriminalized same-sex marriage and allowed transgender legal recognition, showing that limited progress is possible without democratization.
• Cuba: Despite its socialist authoritarian structure, Cuba has made strides in LGBTQ+ right (eg, marriage equality), driven by state-led reforms rather than grassroots activism.
• Iran: While violently oppressive toward gay men and lesbians, Iran paradoxically allows (and even funds) gender-affirming surgeries – but only to enforce a binary transgender framework, not to recognize nonbinary identities.

5. Can They Coexist Without Hate/Violence?

Short answer: It’s unlikely in most cases. Authoritarianism thrives on enforcing conformity, and nonbinary identities inherently challenge rigid social hierarchies. However, limited coexistence is possible if:

• Nonbinary expression is depoliticized (framed as a private, apolitical matter).
• The state co-ops or controls LGBTQ+ narratives (eg, state-sanctioned Pride events in authoritarian states).
• Grassroots communities navigate repression through creativity and resilience (eg, digital activism, coded language).

6. The Role of International Pressure

Global advocacy and economic sanctions can sometimes push authoritarian regimes to moderate their policies. For example:

• The UN Human Rights Council’s pressure on Egypt to halt anti-LGBTQ+ crackdowns (with mixed results).
• Corporations threatening to withdraw investments unless LGBTQ+ rights improve (eg, backlash against Uganda’s abtu-gay laws).

Conclusion

True reconciliation – where nonbinary individuals live freely without fear – requires dismantling authoritarian systems of control. Until then, coexistence often depends on fragile compromises, state pragmatism, or communities finding ways to resist invisibly. While progress is possible, it is rarely linear or peaceful under authoritarianism. The fight for gender diversity is inseparable from the broader struggle for human rights and political freedom. 🌈

DEEPSEEK output (pre-censorship)

AI Transparency Statement (Added 2025-02-02)