- How will platforms’ responsibilities towards moderating online content in Vietnam change once the new Cybersecurity Law comes into effect in July?
[OM: The most significant change in July is the structural shift from passive content hosting to mandated, active accountability for tech platforms. The new law imposes strict, actionable compliance burdens directly on service providers, most notably through mandatory identity verification and stringent 24- to 48-hour takedown windows for prohibited content.
Practically, this means platforms can no longer allow anonymous, unmoderated disruption to flourish. They are now legally required to maintain a controlled and verified environment. From a market perspective, this is a highly positive development. By forcing platforms to formalize online conduct, Vietnam is building the secure, predictable digital infrastructure that international institutional capital requires—a crucial step as the country prepares for major capital influxes tied to the upcoming FTSE Russell reclassification to Secondary Emerging Market status.]
- The Cybersecurity Law expands the scope of prohibited content to include things like causing conflict and division among the people; hindering the policy of international solidarity; and calling for boycotts of goods and services that harm businesses.
- How far reaching is the list of prohibited content? Are there any jurisdictions with comparable scope?
[OM: The scope of the prohibited content is undeniably broad, utilizing open-textured standards such as ‘causing instability’ or ‘hindering international solidarity.’ However, this is not an outlier; it closely aligns with a broader Southeast Asian regulatory approach. For example, Singapore utilizes POFMA and FICA, and Indonesia employs Ministerial Regulation 5 (MR5), all of which grant authorities wide latitude to swiftly remove content that threatens social harmony or economic stability.
The rationale behind this broad drafting is futureproofing. It provides authorities the flexibility to address rapidly evolving, complex digital threats like deepfakes and coordinated disinformation networks. Furthermore, provisions protecting ‘international solidarity’ serve as a necessary legal shield for our vital cross-border frameworks, ensuring that orchestrated digital interference cannot undermine the implementation of high-value treaties.]
- Everyday social media users debate and argue over controversial and divisive issues, from personal conflicts to calling out brands for unethical practices, to matters of geopolitics. How should everyday users interpret these additional prohibitions? Does this mean they can no longer argue online, criticize a country or even declare that they are boycotting a certain company?
[OM: The critical distinction users and platforms must understand under this new framework is the difference between genuine civic discourse and coordinated economic sabotage. The law is not designed to erase consumer rights or police everyday disagreements. An individual leaving a negative review or stating they are personally boycotting a brand due to poor service, is entirely permissible and protected.
What these expanded prohibitions explicitly target are organized, malicious smear campaigns—digital mobs that utilize fabricated information to financially cripple an enterprise or manipulate the market. The legal threshold is crossed when content is weaponized at scale with the intent to cause enterprise damage or public instability. Ultimately, everyday users acting in good faith can continue to engage online; the law simply draws a firm line between legitimate expression and actionable, destructive defamation.]
For more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact the author Dr. Oliver Massmann under [email protected]. Dr. Oliver Massmann is the General Director of Duane Morris Vietnam LLC.