Has anyone mentioned that the SCMP is a propaganda outlet under the Chinese party-state’s disinformation regime?

@Cowbee@lemmy.ml

Not that I think you will listen, but do yourself a favor and stay away from wherever you get this stuff.

@Cowbee@lemmy.ml

Have you now found a fabricated data pretending that “wages for working people have skyrocketed” in China? The most important thing in your comment is that you share an image, but not the link.

To help you out:

Between the 1980s and to the mid-2020s,

• the bottom-50%'s share of China’s wealth has decreased from 16% to 6%
• the bottom-50%'s share of China’s income has decreased from 25% to 13%

In the same period,

• the top-1%'s share of China’s wealth has increased from 15% to more than 30%
• the top-1% share of China’s income has increased from 6% to 16%

China’s richest 10% now own almost 70% of the countries wealth, and they earn 44% of the income.

Inequality levels in China are equal to those in the United States in the meantime.

In European countries and other democracies like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, the inequality is much lower.

You can look up the data here.

The situation in China gets worse, as the county’s gig economy nears half the workforce while worker protections lag behind. There is ample evidence for that.

Hasn’t also China been reiterating its stance on renaming locations in neighbouring countries such as in India’s Arunachal Pradesh, calling the region “Zangnan” and asserting it as part of its territory? The same happens with some regions in the South China sea.

You literally say that “these sources are unreliable.”

So what is a reliable source regarding this issue in your opinion?

This ‘top court’ is under the same CCP rule as this medium.

A patent boom is certainly a meaningful indicator of innovative capacity, but it does not necessarily equate to technological supremacy. China’s patents is not commensurate with the importance of its patents as a large part of these patents aren’t even renewed (it’s also in the WIPO report).

The issue with scientific publication is similar issue. Even the Chinese state-controlled media like the South China Morning Post has published article on AI-powered fraud and Chinese paper mills are mass-producing fake academic research. The FT wrote, China’s fake science industry: how ‘paper mills’ threaten progress,

… China’s impressive output [of scientific research] masks systemic inefficiencies and an underbelly of low-quality and fraudulent research. Academics complain about the crushing pressure to publish to gain prized positions at research universities.

“To survive in Chinese academia, we have many KPIs [key performance indicators] to hit. So when we publish, we focus on quantity over quality,” says a physics lecturer from a prominent Beijing university. “When prospective employers look at our CVs, it is much easier for them to judge the quantity of our output over the quality of the research,” he adds …

The headline numbers alone are meaningless. If we look closer, we’ll see a different picture.

A patent boom is certainly a meaningful indicator of innovative capacity, but it does not necessarily equate to technological supremacy. China’s patents is not commensurate with the importance of its patents as a large part of these patents aren’t even renewed (it’s also in the WIPO report).

The issue with scientific publication is similar issue. Even the Chinese state-controlled media like the South China Morning Post has published article on AI-powered fraud and Chinese paper mills are mass-producing fake academic research. The FT wrote, China’s fake science industry: how ‘paper mills’ threaten progress,

… China’s impressive output [of scientific research] masks systemic inefficiencies and an underbelly of low-quality and fraudulent research. Academics complain about the crushing pressure to publish to gain prized positions at research universities.

“To survive in Chinese academia, we have many KPIs [key performance indicators] to hit. So when we publish, we focus on quantity over quality,” says a physics lecturer from a prominent Beijing university. “When prospective employers look at our CVs, it is much easier for them to judge the quantity of our output over the quality of the research,” he adds …

The headline numbers alone are meaningless. If we look closer, we’ll see a different picture.

A patent boom is certainly a meaningful indicator of innovative capacity, but it does not necessarily equate to technological supremacy. China’s patents is not commensurate with the importance of its patents as a large part of these patents aren’t even renewed (it’s also in the WIPO report).

The issue with scientific publication is similar issue. Even the Chinese state-controlled media like the South China Morning Post has published article on AI-powered fraud and Chinese paper mills are mass-producing fake academic research. The FT wrote, China’s fake science industry: how ‘paper mills’ threaten progress,

… China’s impressive output [of scientific research] masks systemic inefficiencies and an underbelly of low-quality and fraudulent research. Academics complain about the crushing pressure to publish to gain prized positions at research universities.

“To survive in Chinese academia, we have many KPIs [key performance indicators] to hit. So when we publish, we focus on quantity over quality,” says a physics lecturer from a prominent Beijing university. “When prospective employers look at our CVs, it is much easier for them to judge the quantity of our output over the quality of the research,” he adds …

The headline numbers alone are meaningless. If we look closer, we’ll see a different picture.

You literally say that “these sources are unreliable.”

So what is a reliable source regarding this issue in your opinion?

What is a reliable source regarding this issue in your opinion?

What is a reliable source regarding this issue in your opinioin?

Futurism links to the SCMP (which acts under the Chinese Communist Party’s censorship regime) which in turn is referencing a CNAS’ ‘online event’ and a ‘CNAS report published last week’, though there are no links to the online event nor the report.

I couldn’t find the online event, but here is the report for those who want to read it: Superpowers and AGI - How U.S.-China Competition Could Be Shaped by the Emergence of Artificial General Intelligence

The linked article is quoting Stokes, for example, saying,

“Data centers can be bombed with conventional munitions,”

and,

“Bombing would cross a major threshold that heretofore has not been crossed in US-China relations.”

I can’t find these and other quotations from the linked article in the original report (not even the SCMP is quoting these).

In the original report, there is no mention of a “US military strike against China” as the SCMP headline tries to make people believe.

In the original report, words like ‘bombing’ and ‘espionage’ - quoted by Futurism - don’t even exist.

Though the report discusses the U.S./China rivalry regarding AGI, it does so in a much larger and more diverse frame, including the common U.S./China competition with the Global South and other regions, what supposedly happened if and when any other country develops AGI first, and more things related to this topic. It is by no means a report “U.S. versus China” as the linked article (and the SCMP) makes people believe.

AI critic Eliezer Yudkowsky - which is also not mentioned in the SCMP - indeed suggested in 2023 that countries needed to be ready to “destroy a rogue da center by airstrike," but this was not directed specifically to China or any other country. He meant that as a possible (and, for now, theoretical) future measure in case a data center becomes dangerous for humans and humanity at some point in the future.

But you can perfectly combine all these fake quotations and half-truths to create a hopelessly distorted reality. This is pure propaganda aiming to sow division.

Futurism links to the SCMP (which acts under the Chinese Communist Party’s censorship regime) which in turn is referencing a CNAS’ ‘online event’ and a ‘CNAS report published last week’, though there are no links to the online event nor the report.

I couldn’t find the online event, but here is the report for those who want to read it: Superpowers and AGI - How U.S.-China Competition Could Be Shaped by the Emergence of Artificial General Intelligence

The linked article is quoting Stokes, for example, saying,

“Data centers can be bombed with conventional munitions,”

and,

“Bombing would cross a major threshold that heretofore has not been crossed in US-China relations.”

I can’t find these and other quotations from the linked article in the original report (not even the SCMP is quoting these).

In the original report, there is no mention of a “US military strike against China” as the SCMP headline tries to make people believe.

In the original report, words like ‘bombing’ and ‘espionage’ - quoted by Futurism - don’t even exist.

Though the report discusses the U.S./China rivalry regarding AGI, it does so in a much larger and more diverse frame, including the common U.S./China competition with the Global South and other regions, what supposedly happened if and when any other country develops AGI first, and more things related to this topic. It is by no means a report “U.S. versus China” as the linked article (and the SCMP) makes people believe.

AI critic Eliezer Yudkowsky - which is also not mentioned in the SCMP - indeed suggested in 2023 that countries needed to be ready to “destroy a rogue da center by airstrike," but this was not directed specifically to China or any other country. He meant that as a possible (and, for now, theoretical) future measure in case a data center becomes dangerous for humans and humanity at some point in the future.

But you can perfectly combine all these fake quotations and half-truths to create a hopelessly distorted reality. This is pure propaganda aiming to sow division.

Futurism links to the SCMP (which acts under the Chinese Communist Party’s censorship regime) which in turn is referencing a CNAS’ ‘online event’ and a ‘CNAS report published last week’, though there are no links to the online event nor the report.

I couldn’t find the online event, but here is the report for those who want to read it: Superpowers and AGI - How U.S.-China Competition Could Be Shaped by the Emergence of Artificial General Intelligence

The linked article is quoting Stokes, for example, saying,

“Data centers can be bombed with conventional munitions,”

and,

“Bombing would cross a major threshold that heretofore has not been crossed in US-China relations.”

I can’t find these and other quotations from the linked article in the original report (not even the SCMP is quoting these).

In the original report, there is no mention of a “US military strike against China” as the SCMP headline tries to make people believe.

In the original report, words like ‘bombing’ and ‘espionage’ - quoted by Futurism - don’t even exist.

Though the report discusses the U.S./China rivalry regarding AGI, it does so in a much larger and more diverse frame, including the common U.S./China competition with the Global South and other regions, what supposedly happened if and when any other country develops AGI first, and more things related to this topic. It is by no means a report “U.S. versus China” as the linked article (and the SCMP) makes people believe.

AI critic Eliezer Yudkowsky - which is also not mentioned in the SCMP - indeed suggested in 2023 that countries needed to be ready to “destroy a rogue da center by airstrike," but this was not directed specifically to China or any other country. He meant that as a possible (and, for now, theoretical) future measure in case a data center becomes dangerous for humans and humanity at some point in the future.

But you can perfectly combine all these fake quotations and half-truths to create a hopelessly distorted reality. This is pure propaganda aiming to sow division.

Futurism links to the SCMP (which acts under the Chinese Communist Party’s censorship regime) which in turn is referencing a CNAS’ ‘online event’ and a ‘CNAS report published last week’, though there are no links to the online event nor the report.

I couldn’t find the online event, but here is the report for those who want to read it: Superpowers and AGI - How U.S.-China Competition Could Be Shaped by the Emergence of Artificial General Intelligence

The linked article is quoting Stokes, for example, saying,

“Data centers can be bombed with conventional munitions,”

and,

“Bombing would cross a major threshold that heretofore has not been crossed in US-China relations.”

I can’t find these and other quotations from the linked article in the original report (not even the SCMP is quoting these).

In the original report, there is no mention of a “US military strike against China” as the SCMP headline tries to make people believe.

In the original report, words like ‘bombing’ and ‘espionage’ - quoted by Futurism - don’t even exist.

Though the report discusses the U.S./China rivalry regarding AGI, it does so in a much larger and more diverse frame, including the common U.S./China competition with the Global South and other regions, what supposedly happened if and when any other country develops AGI first, and more things related to this topic. It is by no means a report “U.S. versus China” as the linked article (and the SCMP) makes people believe.

AI critic Eliezer Yudkowsky - which is also not mentioned in the SCMP - indeed suggested in 2023 that countries needed to be ready to “destroy a rogue da center by airstrike," but this was not directed specifically to China or any other country. He meant that as a possible (and, for now, theoretical) future measure in case a data center becomes dangerous for humans and humanity at some point in the future.

But you can perfectly combine all these fake quotations and half-truths to create a hopelessly distorted reality. This is pure propaganda aiming to sow division.

A more elaborated article is by the EU Observer, it says,

… The list of countries that are not currently compliant with the EU rules was** originally agreed in May** …

The spokesperson added that the commission had received guarantees that Brazil’s poultry industry was compliant but that “we need them for all animal products” and this was “not the case for beef at the moment" …

Around half of all beef imports to the EU come from Mercosur nations. For its part, Brazil was the EU’s second-largest supplier of beef in 2025, exporting more than 92,000 tonnes worth over €713m.

It seems Brazil is failing here, not the EU.

Sponsored by Russia, China, and the USA.

@Seppo@sopuli.xyz

The OG Nazis in the 1930s would not exist without the USA.

This is simply wrong as others have already said.

And although we can learn a lot from history, today’s far-right (and far-left) in Germany and Europe have been supported by China and Russia rather. The MAGAs in the US only joined the party recently.

Marriage of Convenience: How European Far-Right and Far-Left Discovered China

European far-right and far-left political parties, though ideologically opposed, are finding common ground in their alignments with China, echoing Beijing’s narratives and raising concerns about foreign influence and manipulation.

Yes, that’s what I thought, too.

You may know that, but just for others who may not be too much into this:

Egypt is not moving away from the USD. It is just further diversifying its trade and dependencies. It is also noteworthy that trade between Egypt and China moves mostly in one direction: from Egypt to China. Between 2021 and 2025, Egypt’s imports from China increased from USD 14 billion to almost USD 19 billion, while Egypt’s exports to China decreased from USD 1.5 billion to lesss than USD 0.5 billion.

While almost 20 percent of Egypt’s imports come from China, less than 1 percent of Egypt’s export go to China. It’s a good business for Chinese companies, not necessarily for Egyptians as they face a huge and growing trade deficit. (Egypt largest trading partner is the EU btw.)

And the local swap agreement between the countries must be seen under China’s somewhat special currency policy: The Chinese Yuan used within China (known as the CNY or onshore Yuan) is different from the Yuan used outside of China (the CNH or offshore Yuan). There is no free float for the offshore Yuan either as the Chinese Central Bank allows trade within a narrow range that is said to be of 2% above or below the mid-rate for the day. If the exchange rate moves outside these limits, the central bank steps in. However, it can change its policy at any time.

By this currency policy, the Chinese Communist Party has been able to determine an exchange rate regime that works in the interests of the Chinese leadership (not necessarily the Chinese people). It could depreciate its currency at any time as it has done in 2019, when the property crisis in China started, and this crisis is not yet over as we know.