Ethical Stack.

DeepSeek API

Direct API access to DeepSeek models using OpenAI- or Anthropic-compatible request formats.

Score calculation

(3 + 2 + 1 + 7) ÷ 4 = 3.3

4 of six dimensions rated. Unrated dimensions are excluded from the average.

Full scoring method ↗
Setup details

DeepSeek developer API service and current selected model endpoint; downstream app privacy is the customer’s responsibility.

What fits your needs

Direct DeepSeek developer API; pricing, model aliases, and service behavior change over time.

SDK access

The API supports OpenAI- and Anthropic-compatible formats with a documented base URL and API key.

See the evidence
Tradeoffs to expect

Pricing and billing

Token prices, peak/off-peak windows, cache pricing, and tool calls are listed separately and can change.

See the evidence
How to switch

Choose model ID

Create an API key and configure the selected model and compatible SDK; check retired aliases in the change log.

See the evidence
Practical questions

API data terms

The consumer policy excludes downstream developer platforms, so confirm API privacy and retention terms separately.

See the evidence

Energy practices

3/10↑

For the DeepSeek chat-completions API boundary, public documentation establishes the service or route but not its request-level physical footprint. The API documents a selectable model, thinking mode and maximum output-token cap; these are request controls, not measured power reductions. Electricity sourcing is not mapped to this route.

See the evidence

This practices/transparency assessment covers the DeepSeek chat-completions API boundary. The sources establish how the service or endpoint is exposed and provide the request controls described in the demand component; they do not give a measured per-request energy, emissions or water value. The disclosure point reflects the stated operating boundary, not a product footprint, and company-wide electricity reporting is not attributed to this route.

1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 1 controls = 3/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.

The reviewed sources don’t confirm request-level electricity, emissions or water; the actual serving facility and its power mix are also not mapped to DeepSeek chat-completions API.

Reporting1/3
The reviewed documentation defines the DeepSeek chat-completions API boundary. It gives an operating-scope description, not a dated quantitative energy, carbon or water report for this route.
Electricity sourcing0/3
No reviewed source maps DeepSeek chat-completions API to a disclosed electricity mix or time-and-location-matched clean-power supply. The route's actual electricity use and emissions therefore remain unestablished.
Resource controls1/3
The API documents a selectable model, thinking mode and maximum output-token cap; these are request controls, not measured power reductions.

Water disclosure

Water reporting has not been assessed for this choice.

Training data

—Depends on the model↑

The API selects among model IDs and uses distinct developer terms. API prompts and outputs do not reveal rights in the underlying pretraining data.

See the evidence

User prompts, model-improvement settings, and the original training data are different evidence questions. The reviewed product documentation does not identify a fixed model version and complete training-data rights record for DeepSeek developer API service and current selected model endpoint; downstream app privacy is the customer’s responsibility., so this assessment remains unscored.

Exact model selection, release version, source inventory, permissions, post-training data, and creator-remedy scope remain unresolved.

Your data & privacy

—Not enough evidence↑

DeepSeek API documentation establishes endpoints, authentication, model names, pricing, and request isolation, but doesn’t confirm API-specific content retention or training terms in the reviewed docs.

See the evidence

The API and consumer chatbot are separate services. The consumer privacy policy explicitly excludes downstream systems built using the open platform, while the API docs do not specify full data-retention terms; consumer-app policy cannot safely be transferred to API traffic.

API request retention, training use, abuse monitoring, regional handling, and applicable business terms need direct account-specific confirmation.

Openness

2/10↑

This is a hosted service with a public interface but no documented self-hostable product runtime or weights in the reviewed sources.

See the evidence

The service provides a hosted product or API interface, while the reviewed product material does not expose the serving implementation and current model weights for independent deployment. This rates this service scope, not separately released model weights.

The score reflects service-level inspectability and control, not usefulness or model quality.

SDKs, APIs, or model families may have separate licenses and do not make this service itself self-hostable.

Worker protections

1/10↑

DeepSeek’s reviewed model, privacy and user-term materials don’t confirm employment conditions, a worker grievance route or labor assurance for its AI supply chain.

See the evidence

The sources reviewed provide product, terms, or corporate information but no qualifying disclosure about conditions for data annotators, evaluators, moderators, or infrastructure workers. This is a disclosure gap within the checked materials, not evidence that workers are mistreated or that no labor policy exists. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

1 + 0 pay & conditions + 0 worker voice & remedy + 0 evidence & follow-through = 1/10. This grades documented worker safeguards, not a measured rate of mistreatment.

Worker counts, locations, pay, labor protections, worker voice mechanisms, supplier coverage, and independent audit or remediation outcomes were not established in the sources reviewed.

Pay & conditions0/3
Reviewed sources provide no qualifying disclosure of worker conditions; this zero is limited to the checked material and is not an exhaustive claim.
Worker voice & remedy0/3
No qualifying worker-voice mechanism or documented worker grievance outcomes were disclosed in the reviewed material.
Evidence & follow-through0/3
No independent labor audit results, worker-level corroboration, or remediation outcomes were disclosed in the reviewed material.
Workers rubric ↗

Military ties

7/10Not established↑

No DeepSeek military customer, contract or deployment is identified in the reviewed official sources.

See the evidence

DeepSeek’s reviewed official terms, privacy material and model disclosures do not identify a defense customer, military contract or deployment. Public model artifacts can be reused downstream, but that doesn’t confirm DeepSeek’s own military relationship or any customer-specific safeguard. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

7 base + 0 safeguard adjustment = 7/10 (0 of 9 safeguard points; every 3 adds 1). No military relationship was established in the cited sources. This ranks above known defense ties without claiming a verified clean record.

Complete contract texts, undisclosed customers, end-use restrictions, actual workload deployment, and independent compliance or outcome reports are unavailable in the reviewed public material.

Use restrictions0/4
The reviewed terms or policy material contains no qualifying military-use restriction beyond general lawfulness/export compliance; this zero is limited to the reviewed source set.
Enforcement & oversight0/3
No military-specific review, enforcement, or remedy mechanism was disclosed in the sources reviewed.
Relationship disclosure0/2
No military-specific relationship or military-specific transparency policy was disclosed in the materials reviewed; this is a scoped disclosure finding.

DeepSeek’s model disclosures and user terms reviewed here do not identify a military contract, named defense customer, or military deployment. Its open model artifacts permit downstream uses, but that doesn’t show DeepSeek’s own military relationship.

Military rubric ↗

BDS targets

Not listed↑

We did not find DeepSeek among the named targets in the two official BNC campaign lists. This is a limited list check, not BDS approval.

See the evidence

DeepSeek is not a named target in the checked lists, but BDS uses selective campaigns, so absence cannot establish a clean record. Running downloaded weights locally is a different decision from paying the developer or a cloud host; check the host as well. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

This review covers the named targets in the BNC consumer/pressure guide and No Tech campaign, not every BDS campaign, local group, investment or supplier. Lists and ownership can change. A company’s absence from these lists is not an endorsement or proof that it has no relevant relationships.

More from DeepSeek

All sources

Side by side