By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Yao Zhang, a Quebec-based YouTuber, has become a target of the Chinese government after criticizing the Communist Party of China on her channel, which has over 175,000 subscribers. She has been subject to an “spamouflage” campaign, including AI-generated explicit images and doxxing attempts, which the Canadian government has attributed to the People’s Republic of China. Zhang has also faced threats against herself and her family, including pressure on relatives in China, prompting her to be extremely cautious and limit communication. Despite these challenges, Zhang continues to speak out, recognizing the risks and the importance of her activism.
Read the original article here
The Chinese government circulated sexually explicit deepfakes of dissident Yao Zhang, according to the Government of Canada, and that’s a pretty shocking thing to process. If true, it’s a deeply disturbing tactic, and it really makes you consider the lengths some governments will go to in order to silence their critics. It immediately brings to mind broader questions about digital warfare, character assassination, and the potential for AI to be weaponized in ways we’re only beginning to understand.
The idea that someone’s private image could be manipulated and disseminated to discredit them, especially for political reasons, is chilling. Think about the impact such a thing would have on the person targeted; the humiliation, the potential damage to their reputation, and the emotional toll. It’s an attack on their very personhood. And it makes you wonder about the broader motivations behind it. Is it purely about silencing a voice of dissent, or is it also about sending a message to others: “Speak out against us, and this could be you”? It certainly seems like governments often lean towards trying to silence critics and dissidents, which speaks volumes about a regime’s perceived weaknesses. Real power, as they say, doesn’t fear criticism; it addresses it and encourages it, but this doesn’t appear to be the case here.
Of course, the immediate response for a lot of people is skepticism, and that’s healthy. The claim is that a specific government is responsible for something like this, you’d want to see solid evidence. People are naturally wary of the “boogeyman” narrative. But the fact that the Government of Canada, a credible entity, is making this accusation adds a different weight to the story. The official statement from Global Affairs Canada, as the article mentions, specifically blames the PRC for using AI-generated images to target individuals in Canada. It’s not just a rumor; it’s a formal accusation.
There are also points about the potential for others to be involved, such as internet trolls. And while that’s possible, the scale and sophistication of deepfake technology, along with the targeting of a known dissident, suggest something more organized, as is the statement of the Government of Canada. It’s also important to remember that this isn’t necessarily about profit. It’s about political power. It’s about controlling the narrative and discrediting the opposition. The use of “spamouflage” tactics, as it is described, which include intimidation, belittling, and harassment of critics, really paints a picture of a broader campaign of digital suppression.
What the incident does point to is the ever-increasing danger of deepfakes and the ways they can be used to manipulate, deceive, and harm individuals. It highlights the speed at which technology is evolving and the challenges that governments and societies face in keeping up. It brings up questions of how we should interpret online media and who we can trust. It also serves as a warning of how quickly things can escalate into something much more dangerous.
The case also brings to mind the case of Peng Shuai, the female tennis player. It’s a reminder of the lengths to which some governments will go to silence dissent and control information. Then there is this point about people saying, “I haven’t seen the evidence so it’s fake news.” Well the article notes that the Canadian government has confirmed it. It isn’t the whole story, as there are obviously other pieces to consider, but it’s important information.
Finally, it forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about free speech, human rights, and the future of online discourse. It’s not just about one person or one country, it’s about the broader implications for the world as a whole. As technology continues to advance, we need to be prepared for more sophisticated and malicious uses of AI and other tools of manipulation. This is an issue that deserves serious attention and investigation, for the sake of free speech.