In a YouTube video, a voice in English announces that China has researched and developed its own ultra-thin 1-nanometer chip – a staggering claim given that the chip isn’t expected in commercial devices for another decade.

“Recent news from China has sent ripples of excitement and astonishment across the globe,” gushes the voice-over on the China Charged YouTube channel. “This revolutionary breakthrough is more than a technological marvel; it is a game-changer that will redefine the global tech landscape.”

“Prepare to have your mind blown,” says another video, this time on the channel Unbelievable Projects. “Welcome to today’s video, in which we’ll discover why America remains behind China in infrastructure development.”

These voices and their “good news” about China are evidence that the Chinese Communist Party and its overseas proxies are using artificial intelligence to flood YouTube with propaganda videos, according to a new report that describes a “coordinated inauthentic influence campaign” on the platform.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That has more to do with you regurgitating misinformation, than it does with the Chinese.

    Those arguments have been debunked ad nauseam.

    • deft@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      It literally isn’t misinformation though? EVs are still polluting. There is no world with cars and buildings without pollution my guy especially now where we are at with technology.

      Nothing has been debunked?

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It literally isn’t misinformation though?

        It literally is…

        EVs are still polluting

        No one thinks they’re not polluting. Everything you consume is polluting. But EVs pollute significantly less than their dino-fuel-powered counterparts, that’s the point you’re missing.

        • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This debate is clearly one of different goalposts.

          Electric car fans will fairly notice that electric cars are less bad than traditional ICE cars, and therefore the technology is good

          Anti-car folks will also rightfully point out that there’s too much focus on EVs at the time when we should move away from cars altogether, and that electric car future is also very unsustainable, just a little bit less, while giving the false impression of something “green”

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree but it’s not a “false impression”. They ARE green. Just because they’re not the most environmentally friendly thing on the planet doesn’t mean they’re not green.

            I’d be elated if we all moved away from cars but that’s simply not realistic anytime in the near future.

            • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              We should certainly establish the same definition of “green”, as it is so wide it encompasses both of our positions.

              I claim that most people expect EVs to be the solution for eco-friendly transportation that is sustainable and future-proof. And this is not true. That’s what I meant.

              It’s important to clear out why it is unrealistic in order to address it. I see two reasons: 1.Governments not doing enough to promote and build effective public transit 2.People not willing to lose comfort of driving their own car - something that insulates them from other people and allows to move anywhere anytime.

              And both are solvable through policy changes. First, we desperately need to invest in public transit. We can get money by taxing car sales more, which will shift both sides of the equation by making cars less affordable, while at the same time freeing up money for public transit development (of course, less sales of cars should be factored in). We need more routes, more comfortable conditions for passengers, more relatively low-scale options to drive passengers to less popular destinations. We also need to subsidize taxi and car rentals for cases when someone actually needs a car.

              But those are the solutions that might get negative reaction of the public at first, and this tension is to me the most problematic (of course after lobbying made by automakers). Populist leaders will never go for that step, or they risk losing their popularity and influence.

        • deft@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lmfao no I get the point you literally named what I’m saying and gloss over it and this is why this situation we are under is inevitable

      • sheogorath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For the energy source aspect, it’s much more efficient to have a single big place to generate electricity compared to having millions of portable combustion engines running around inside cars. It’s also easier to switch to a cleaner energy if a wind farm or a solar power plant if you’re a state or some entity that’s responsible for energy generation in your region.

        TBH my biggest pet peeve on an EV is basically every EV is a privacy sucking machine. They record everything and send everything home. Give me a car like my old car that doesn’t have any telemetry and the technology is simple enough I can even push start the car when the alternator is fully dead.

        • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          While it is true that a centralized energy source is more efficient and clean it still isn’t enough. Even if every car was replaced by an EV it wouldn’t solve our climate crisis. The only thing it would save is the automobile industry.

          Here’s so info

          And more

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nobody, and I do literally mean nobody, has ever said that BEVs would single-handedly solve climate change.

            Congratulations on knocking down the strawman you have created.

            • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’ve just knocked down strawman yourself.

              The point made by commenter is not that cars are the only source of climate change, but that EV industry is in itself heavily polluting and unsustainable. While it is true that it is a little less heavy on the environment than an ICE car (assuming you drive it regularly, because building an EV is less environmentally friendly, actually), it is still an incredibly environmentally unfriendly solution.

              Manufacturing is super polluting and expends very limited resources in huge quantities. Energy sources are normally NOT green, and even if they are, they are not harmless, too. Tyres are still a giant problem. Parking lots require a lot of urban spaces, which leads to stretching cities and exacerbating problems with all transportation, as well as leading to deforestation on the outskirts and ramped up asphalt production. More roads are required, meaning again, more intervention in natural ecosystems, extreme amounts of resources and pollution.

              There is simply no way you can drive a 2-ton car to move ~70kg human around with it making any ecological sense, while many people pretend that EV’s are here to save us. No, sorry, they are not; you’ll have to change your habits if you want to keep Earth habitable. Period.

            • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              But they are being marketed as a very sustainable and ecologically friendly method of transportation which they very much are not. There’s no straw man there I just used a hypothetical to accentuate the meaninglessness of “more sustainable” forms of overconsumption. Cars are an incredibly wasteful and absurd form of daily transportation; especially in mass. The fight against climate change will directly affect your life and you will have to change aspects of your life for the benefit of the world as a whole. We cannot continue our path of overconsumption and overproduction and expect it to just work out or become sustainable in the future somehow. If the solution is being sold it isn’t the solution

              Obviously, I’m aware that no one believes EVs will single handedly solve climate change. I’m not stupid and I don’t think you are either