Vietnamese Government Whines Facebook Isn't Helping It Censor Critics Quickly Enough

from the get-bent-fellow-UN-member dept

The censorship arm of the Vietnamese government is at it again, complaining that it's not getting enough censorship accomplished. The target of its complaints is, oddly enough, a former enabler of its dissent-stifling efforts, Facebook.

To help it snuff out criticism and dissent, the government granted itself expansive new powers with a cybersecurity law that went into effect at the beginning of this year. When a law is clearly written to target government critics, it appears that it can be applied a lot more broadly, especially when the definition of "cybersecurity" includes all of this:

According to the ABEI [Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information], Facebook had violated Vietnamese laws in three major areas of managing information content, online advertising and tax liability.

Facebook had not reportedly responded to a request to remove fanpages provoking activities against the State at the request of authorities.

Facebook had also allowed content from personal accounts to post slanderous content, anti-government sentiment and libel and defamation of individuals, organisations and State agencies. This content had been found to seriously violate Viet Nam’s Law on Cyber Security, Government’s Decree 72/2013, on the management, provision and use of internet services and online information and the MIC’s Circular 38 detailing the provision of public information across the border.

Just like that, criticism of the government becomes an cybersecurity threat, as does libel, defamation, and, um, providing public information across borders. Vietnam censors are angry Facebook hasn't responded to multiple emails demanding the removal of "distorted or misleading" content. However, Facebook has responded, telling the Vietnamese government these posts don't violate "community standards."

Apparently, the Vietnamese government is going to tax Facebook into submission.

According to ANTS market research company, in 2018, spending on online advertising in Viet Nam was estimated at US$550 million, of which advertising spent on Facebook and Google were $235 million and $152.1 million respectively. However, the two have reportedly ignored their tax obligations in Viet Nam.

The fact that foreign businesses such as Facebook do not pay taxes had caused the state to lose money and float the online advertising market, said the ABEI.

If this doesn't work (and it won't), the government is going to do other vague things ("necessary economic and technical measures") to hurt Facebook and "ensure a clean and healthy network environment." One "necessary economic measure" is somehow blocking Facebook from collecting money for "hatred advertising," whatever the hell that is.

What the government really wants is direct control. The Financial Times reports the government is demanding Facebook physically set up shop in Vietnam as the new law requires. Having a local office makes it that much easier for men with guns to follow up on ignored content removal requests. For exactly this reason, Facebook should never create a Vietnam office, unless it's going to do it patent troll-style and rent out an empty office and tell the Vietnamese government all content removal requests must be mailed to the nearest strip mall with a Mailboxes, Etc.

The Vietnamese government doesn't have much leverage as it loves having access to Facebook to deliver its version of events, as well as give its 10,000 full-time internet monitors something to look at. So, it's not going to kick Facebook out. It's just going to keep demanding fees it can't collect while claiming anything anti-government is a threat to the nation's safety.

Filed Under: censorship, cybersecurity, free speech, vietnam
Companies: facebook

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jan 2019 @ 1:35pm

    What's fundamentally different about this?

    No one in the U.S. government has yet to petition the hosting provider/domain registrar handling InfoWars for a shutdown of that website. No one in the U.S. government attempted to use their power for the purpose of having Jones booted from Facebook.

    What if you're put on a blacklist by ALL corporations? Are you suddenly going to talk up anti-trust?

    See, this is an actual decent talking point you have here. Companies such as CloudFlare and domain registrars wield an immense amount of power, and their ability to boot websites such as InfoWars and social interaction networks such as Gab from the Internet is a legitimate concern from a “free speech” standpoint.

    The problem with your raising it is that you cannot do so without insulting everyone and making them hostile toward you by default. That makes a reasoned discussion of the subject—or a reasoned discussion with you, at any rate—as close to impossibile as such a thing can get. If you want a discussion, I will give you one. But you will not receive one if you continue to act like a petulant teenage brat/Donald Trump.

    HOW will you get your message out when the very means to do so are what you must use and are against you? HMM?

    You could use literally every other means of communication outside of a public-facing website or a social interaction network. Email, physical letters, phone calls—CloudFlare cannot legally stop you from using any of those things.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.