It's an interesting progression - 5 years ago the Vietnamese government was trying to block Facebook (it was pretty easy to get around). Then they gave up on that and allowed everyone on Facebook, and now they are more concerned with dissent so I guess they are going to patrol social media. It's interesting that they have not decided to return to their previous policy of blocking Facebook.
They have some pretty strange policies here. I lived in Dalat, Vietnam for two years and went to an "illegal" Vietnamese language class. A teacher needs to have a license from Hanoi to teach Vietnamese to foreigners. And since it's apparently impossible to get a license, we were studying Vietnamese illegally. Eventually, the local police got wind of it and broke the class up. So all of the foreigners living here are essentially forbidden from learning how to communicate with the locals effectively. It's very bizarre.
Somewhere along the line, they realised that deploying a bunch of KGB-style bots on Facebook was a hell of a lot more effective at controlling people than simply banning it. When dissent results in a crushing flood of mean-spirited trolls, who needs censorship?
The US has gotten a lot closer to Vietnam in terms of trade relations over the last 5 to 10 years. The US now regards Vietnam as a strategic interest to be aggressively developed.
The US will import about $50 billion worth of goods from Vietnam in 2017. That's up from $10 billion a decade ago.
That's equal to 25% of Vietnam's entire GDP.
It's also almost entirely one way, it's about as pure of a trade deficit as they get, so Vietnam is being doused with USD capital the same way China was in the early days of its growth boom. That's going to get a lot more dramatic yet, as the US wants some other large partners to work with in the region. For Vietnam's part, they seem perfectly happy to take the trade & capital inflow and put it to use rapidly expanding their economy.
This is BS. I lived in Vietnam for years, there are plenty of language schools where foreigners can go to learn Vietnamese. I've never heard of anyone needing a license to teach Vietnamese. There are even volunteer groups in HCMC for teaching foreigners Vietnamese, all done in the open with no teaching certifications.
There are universities in Saigon that offer Vietnamese language classes for foreigners so it's definitely not forbidden. As is usually the case in Vietnam, the law depends a lot on when it's interpreted and who is doing the interpreting.
It's a dangerous illusion of modernity that you can just pick up a "high quality" newspaper or watch the news and understand what is happening in the world. Or even in your own region.
One possible advantage of the total chaos of internet news is that the noise becomes so strong that we can't even receive the signal of traditional news sources with their "expert opinion" anymore.
It seems to be at first glance. The EU initiative you linked to at least seems to try to "[balance] fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, media pluralism, and the right of citizens to diverse and reliable information" in its wording. It also seems to be a committee linked to a EU cabinet, and thus is not directly sponsored by a national military force.
The Vietnamese "cyber-army" in contrast seems to be a direct arm of the military, and the language in the articles appeared to be more military / aggressive oriented ("fight", "combating", etc.) with no mention in the articles regarding "freedom of expression" or other balancing factors.
At first glance, there doesn't appear to be a direct link to the policy initiative from the Vietnamese government, unlike the EU initiative. Though language barrier may be an issue here; I tried Googling lực 47 and didn't get much beyond other news articles and a Wiki entry, but perhaps there are better terms to use. Still, military policy tends to be more opaque in most nations overall, so it didn't surprise me to find no published government information about this initiative.
This might be of interest: The UK Crown Prosecution Service uses " definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify racist or religious incidents/crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes:
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race"
or
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."
They almost certainly get a lot of reports of hate speech, and it is actually an offence, so having some level of specialist response is probably justified. What's wrong is ignoring any category of crime where there are victims, property or otherwise.
London it a multi-ethnic city and in order to stay peacefully that way the more extreme provocateurs of racial and religious hatred need to be silenced.
Specifically one of London's black MPs, Dianne Abbott, recieves something like 40% of all online abuse directed at MPs. After the murder of Jo Cox by a far right extremist this stuff has to be taken seriously.
More context from the report: "The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) was set
up in 2010 to remove unlawful terrorist material from the internet, with a focus on UK-
based material. Twitter, which has been a magnet for jihadist propaganda, said that it had
a close relationship with the CTIRU.
38
Google described CTIRU as a ‘trusted flagger’ with
“an accuracy rate of around 80%”
I'm sure they are getting their playbook from their Chinese friends. Even Japan is getting more heavy handed than they were, and in Asia, they are the most liberal of all governments in comparison.
Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, all heavy handed as regards the Internet. Russia, China, most of the former Balkan states, Turkey... Brazil, even.
Democracy is an import to (East) Asian society. The Confucian authoritarian philosophy had been the norm for almost 2000 years. By default, more power are delegated to the government, and people are oblivious or reluctant to question it.
Internet is just one channel where you can express opinions.
Many journalists are jailed even today based on their opinions, and I feel it's on us tech people to enable them the free speech they deserve.
With the pervasive surveillance, paid troll campaigns from all parties, operations to influence media from agencies, millions of fake anti-net-neutrality messages, etc, the US is not some paragon of internet freedom either...
any country with online capabilities have been doing this for a long time now. governments also like brand-defence... don't understand why people need to point at specific ones (*usualy not country of media origin) instead of trying to speak about the moar broad and global issue of this internet policing / trying to discredit/track/stop people with differing views.
[+] [-] santoriv|8 years ago|reply
They have some pretty strange policies here. I lived in Dalat, Vietnam for two years and went to an "illegal" Vietnamese language class. A teacher needs to have a license from Hanoi to teach Vietnamese to foreigners. And since it's apparently impossible to get a license, we were studying Vietnamese illegally. Eventually, the local police got wind of it and broke the class up. So all of the foreigners living here are essentially forbidden from learning how to communicate with the locals effectively. It's very bizarre.
[+] [-] ashleyn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
The US will import about $50 billion worth of goods from Vietnam in 2017. That's up from $10 billion a decade ago.
That's equal to 25% of Vietnam's entire GDP.
It's also almost entirely one way, it's about as pure of a trade deficit as they get, so Vietnam is being doused with USD capital the same way China was in the early days of its growth boom. That's going to get a lot more dramatic yet, as the US wants some other large partners to work with in the region. For Vietnam's part, they seem perfectly happy to take the trade & capital inflow and put it to use rapidly expanding their economy.
[+] [-] amgin3|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingkawn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zipwitch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cageface|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antisthenes|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uxorious|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown_apostle|8 years ago|reply
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-appl...
It's a dangerous illusion of modernity that you can just pick up a "high quality" newspaper or watch the news and understand what is happening in the world. Or even in your own region.
One possible advantage of the total chaos of internet news is that the noise becomes so strong that we can't even receive the signal of traditional news sources with their "expert opinion" anymore.
[+] [-] soundwave106|8 years ago|reply
The Vietnamese "cyber-army" in contrast seems to be a direct arm of the military, and the language in the articles appeared to be more military / aggressive oriented ("fight", "combating", etc.) with no mention in the articles regarding "freedom of expression" or other balancing factors.
At first glance, there doesn't appear to be a direct link to the policy initiative from the Vietnamese government, unlike the EU initiative. Though language barrier may be an issue here; I tried Googling lực 47 and didn't get much beyond other news articles and a Wiki entry, but perhaps there are better terms to use. Still, military policy tends to be more opaque in most nations overall, so it didn't surprise me to find no published government information about this initiative.
[+] [-] bovermyer|8 years ago|reply
If so... why?
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] addicted|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrslave|8 years ago|reply
This is in spite of admissions they do not have enough resources to respond to property offenses.
[+] [-] vixen99|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
London it a multi-ethnic city and in order to stay peacefully that way the more extreme provocateurs of racial and religious hatred need to be silenced.
Some background: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmha... (caution, includes a couple of example offensive images)
Specifically one of London's black MPs, Dianne Abbott, recieves something like 40% of all online abuse directed at MPs. After the murder of Jo Cox by a far right extremist this stuff has to be taken seriously.
More context from the report: "The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) was set up in 2010 to remove unlawful terrorist material from the internet, with a focus on UK- based material. Twitter, which has been a magnet for jihadist propaganda, said that it had a close relationship with the CTIRU. 38 Google described CTIRU as a ‘trusted flagger’ with “an accuracy rate of around 80%”
[+] [-] malloryerik|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StreamBright|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vim_wannabe|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanlinmt|8 years ago|reply
Edit: Sorry. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017
[+] [-] kebman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheSpiceIsLife|8 years ago|reply
What is your comprehensive alternate?
[+] [-] secret_island|8 years ago|reply
Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, all heavy handed as regards the Internet. Russia, China, most of the former Balkan states, Turkey... Brazil, even.
[+] [-] tzahola|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oh-kumudo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehlike|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taoistextremist|8 years ago|reply
I feel like this isn't really true; Taiwan, and arguably South Korea have more liberal societies and governments.
[+] [-] coldtea|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hktrl|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] distagon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] campuscodi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vectorEQ|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zabana|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ataturk|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]