Vietnam's strict new social media regulations strangle free speech, report says
BANGKOK (AP) — New government regulations on social media in Vietnam give authorities increased powers to prevent dissent and control the news, along with the tools to more easily track down critics and silence them, according to an analysis released Tuesday.
Vietnam's authorities implemented 'Decree 147' in December, tightening regulations on social media companies like Facebook, X, YouTube and TikTok in a bid to further stifle criticism, said Ben Swanton, one of the authors of the report by The 88 Project, a group focused on human rights and free speech issues in Vietnam.
'Any challenge to the government and the Communist Party, any significant challenge to their official narrative of events, is perceived by them as a situation that is getting out of control,' he said in an interview from Thailand.
Among other things, the decree requires users to verify their accounts with phone numbers or national ID cards that must be provided to the government upon request, and for the social media companies to store their data in Vietnam.
It also prevents social media users from engaging in citizen journalism or posting information about suspected government wrongdoing, and requires companies to remove posts deemed illegal within 24 hours. The decree requires companies to allow authorities access to their internal search engines so that it can identify offending content.
Social media companies have until late March to be in compliance, and it is not yet clear whether they will try to push back. TikTok and Facebook refused to comment on their plans, while X and Google, which owns YouTube, did not return emails.
Already, however, researchers have noticed a decline in political posts, Swanton said.
'In the last several years Hanoi has imprisoned or forced into exile the country's most prominent independent journalists, reformers, human rights activists, and dissidents. This has had a chilling effect that encourages people to engage in self-censorship,' he said. 'Decree 147 is designed to turn this chilling effect into an icy stranglehold on free speech.'
Vietnamese authorities did not respond to a request for comment on the Project 88 analysis or the intent behind the new decree.
Authorities tighten the screws on critical reporting
About 65 million Vietnamese have Facebook accounts, roughly two-thirds of the population, and some 35 million have YouTube accounts. About half of Vietnam's people say they get most of their news from social media.
Already, the government frequently insists critical posts from outside the country be geo-blocked so they cannot be accessed inside Vietnam and it has moved quickly to censor posts it deems unacceptable, like a video of a top minister eating a gold-encrusted steak in London in 2021 while Vietnam was on COVID-19 lockdown.
In October, a prominent Vietnamese blogger was sentenced to 12 years in prison for articles and videos exposing the corruption of government officials, and in January, a prominent Vietnamese lawyer was sentenced to three years in jail for Facebook posts criticizing the country's former top judge.
Project 88 researchers said the new decree will also give authorities better tools to go after those who just read or watch social media posts as well.
They noted a case last June in which police in one province went through the profiles of 13,328 members of a Facebook group that had information deemed 'hostile to the state' and identified 20 people in their province, went to their homes and demanded they leave the group.
'If implemented as intended, Decree 147 would likely make it less time consuming to identify members of groups like this and ensure that groups with anti-state content will be blocked in the country,' the report said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
TikTok influencer slammed for viral video about ‘unchic' fashion
Tara Langdale talked to Fox News Digital about how she received hurtful messages from critics after a not-so-serious fashion post describing what she views as 'unchic' went viral, spawning a cascade of events that made her apolitical post a victim of attacks. The self-described stay-at-home working mom amassed some 250,000 views and found herself on the receiving end of some hate after an April 7 TikTok of her seated, drinking from a wine glass with nicely done hair, gold jewelry and manicured nails as she skimmed through a list of 'unchic' fashion sins. Advertisement Tattoos, Lululemon, baggy denim, camouflage and visible panty lines were just a few that made part one of Langdale's controversial 'unchic' list, which drew backlash from seething critics who called her out with a political twist. 'Voting for Trump is unchic,' one said. 'To her, privilege = chic. Hope this helps!' said another. A third said, 'just say you're a republican and go lmao,' while a slew of commenters took exception to her tattoo stance and ranted about classism. Advertisement The video even caught The Guardian's attention, prompting an article that coined 'chic' as 'a shorthand for a type of conservative-coded aesthetic' and spoke of the 'rigid and airbrushed' looks of Trump allies, sch as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. 4 Tara Langdale received backlash for her 'unchic' fashion TikTok. @tara_langdale / TikTok Though Langdale diddles cribe herself as conservative when speaking to Fox News Digital, she insists not everything is about politics. 'When I get dressed in the morning, I'm not thinking about my political party and how I should dress to showcase that,' Langdale said. Advertisement 'I think conservativism is more of culture, religion – all of those things go into your conservativist mindset. Now, if you're talking about conservative style of dress… that's also going to be more like religion and culture,' she went on. 'Of course, if I'm going to church on Sunday, I'm dressing very conservative. I'm going to keep it classy, but if you see me in the street in my regular day-to-day, I am not at all conservative. I would never consider my style to be conservative. But am I conservative? Absolutely, so I can differentiate the two. I know that the internet has a hard time doing that.' 4 Lululemon made Langdale's controversial 'unchic' list — along with baggy denim, camouflage and visible panty lines. REUTERS 4 Tattoos were also on Langdale's list. xartproduction – Langdale addressed the politicized dogma, saying she doesn't understand why TikTok users jumped to conclusions about 'conservative' or 'Republican makeup' as they did. Advertisement 'Because I'm blonde, because I have more of a natural look about me, I'm not fully glammed all the time… I'm really not sure how that makes me appear conservative, but, again, I just think when people don't agree with what you say, they have to find a way to discredit you, and that's just an easy tactic,' she continued. At the same time, Langdale pushed back against the idea of her video implying that people too poor to afford expensive items are automatically 'unchic,' and pointed to brand-name items like athletic apparel brand Lululemon, Apple Watches and Golden Goose sneakers – all of which can be pricey – as evidence pointing to the contrary. 'Just keep in mind that money talks and wealth whispers, and I don't know any wealthy people that are wearing Gucci across their chest,' she said in her original post. Langdale explained that the TikTok trend of users showcasing 'things I find incredibly chic' grabbed her attention as they began circulating on the app. She found them 'pretentious and off-putting,' so she felt compelled to take her own stab at the video. 4 'When I get dressed in the morning, I'm not thinking about my political party and how I should dress to showcase that,' Langdale said about the political criticism she received. @tara_langdale / TikTok 'Of course, my video came off as pretentious and off-putting as well, but it felt like a certain level of cringe for me, and I don't like to personally attack anybody on social media, so I wouldn't go after a specific creator. I just kind of wanted to hop on the trend… so that was my initial, 'Why I created the video.'' Advertisement Langdale shared that her direct messages on the platform have been 'insane' with threats and comments about her family since the video went viral. 'It does make you step back and take a pause,' she shared. 'Like, is this really worth it for how crazy people react? And I would never want to put my family in danger, but I think a lot of it is just the keyboard pirates that are just back there behind their computer typing whatever they can to try to get more likes in the comments,' Langdale added.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Liberia's ex-speaker charged with arson over parliament fire
Liberia's former speaker of parliament has been charged with arson over a fire at the nation's House of Representatives, local police have said. The huge blaze broke out last December, a day after plans to remove Jonathan Fonati Koffa from his role as speaker sparked protests in the capital, Monrovia. Koffa had been locked in a stand-off with his political opponents, with dozens of lawmakers voting for his impeachment in October over accusations of poor governance, corruption and conflicts of interest. Police said on Friday that there were "credible links" to suggest Koffa was "strategically involved" in the incident. Five other lawmakers have also been detained in connection to the case. Koffa has previously denied any connection to the fire breaking out. Police chief Gregory Colman said Koffa had been charged with a string of offences including arson, criminal mischief, endangering other people, and attempted murder. Colman said Koffa had used his office and staff "to co-ordinate sabotage efforts from as early as November 2023", according to news agency AFP. Koffa and several other lawmakers were summoned to the Liberian National Police headquarters on Friday as "persons of interest" in the case, local media reports. The former speaker and three sitting members of the House of Representatives were then remanded to Monrovia Central Prison on Saturday, newspaper FrontPage Africa reported. The blaze on 18 December 2024 destroyed the entire joint chambers of the West African nation's legislature. No one was inside the building at the time. The day before had seen tense protests over the plans to remove Koffa, with demonstrators including an aide to former President George Weah arrested. Several individuals, including Koffa and Representative Frank Saah Foko, were brought in for questioning by police. Foko, a prominent figure in the House of Representatives, allegedly uploaded a video to Facebook in which he said: "If they want us to burn the chambers, we will burn it." A team of independent US investigators brought in to assist the investigation concluded that the fire was set deliberately. Liberia's House of Representatives has been beset by a long-running power struggle. Although the bid to impeach Koffa fell short of the two-thirds majority required, the group of 47 lawmakers who had voted for the move unilaterally appointed their own speaker. Last month, Koffa resigned as speaker after months of political deadlock. Embattled Liberian speaker questioned by police over parliament fire Liberian speaker denies links to parliament fire
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
