Promoting responsible use of social media
In recent years, some Vietnamese nationals living overseas have used Facebook, YouTube, personal websites, livestreaming platforms, and online forums to disseminate political and social content relating to Viet Nam. While some of this content comprises commentary and policy criticism, a significant proportion contains false information, fabricated claims, defamatory statements, personal attacks against leaders, distortions of government policies, and allegations that tarnish the reputation of businesses and the country's image. An important distinction should be made: criticism of public policy is a legitimate right, but fabricating events, making unfounded accusations, or disseminating unverified information that causes harm to organisations or individuals may give rise to legal liability.
Cyberspace is not immune to the rule of law. An individual may post content while residing in Berlin, Vancouver, or California, but that content may still be subject to multiple legal frameworks, including the laws of the country of residence, the laws of the jurisdiction where the alleged harm occurs, the rules governing digital platforms, international treaties on mutual legal assistance, extradition mechanisms, and generally recognised legal principles protecting personal reputation, human dignity, commercial reputation, and national security.
Does living in a Western country mean that people are free to say or write whatever they wish? In reality, while the laws of many Western democracies protect freedom of expression, they also strictly penalise defamation, libel, threats, incitement to violence, violations of privacy, and the dissemination of false information that causes harm. In Germany, the Criminal Code contains provisions covering insult, defamation, and malicious falsehood. Making allegations that tarnish another person's reputation without being able to verify their veracity may result in legal consequences. Knowingly spreading false information with the intention of harming another person's reputation may attract even greater liability. Similarly, Canadian defamation law places considerable emphasis on protecting individual reputation and holding publishers accountable for the information they disseminate.
Within the European Union, the Digital Services Act establishes a new regulatory framework requiring online platforms to operate with greater transparency and accountability in handling illegal content, complaint mechanisms, content reporting procedures, and systemic risk assessments. This demonstrates that Western democracies seek both to protect freedom of expression and to enforce strict accountability for digital platforms and users regarding harmful content.
Identifying methods used in hostile information campaigns
scrutiny of the media activities of certain extremist overseas individuals in recent years reveals several recurring patterns.
The first is the "emotional livestream" model. Presenters employ confrontational language, sensational headlines, and real-time interaction with viewers, constantly responding to comments to forge a sense of intimacy and engagement. Livestreams lasting several hours serve not only to convey information but also to foster an emotionally connected online community. Viewers cease to be passive audiences and instead morph into active participants in a shared sense of outrage, suspicion, or anticipation of the next "revelation". As a result, unverified information can easily become accepted as what could be termed "emotional truth".
The second is the "real facts–false conclusions" model. Certain factual elements may indeed be accurate — a criminal case, a personnel change, market difficulties, or a social controversy. However, these facts are removed from their broader context, combined with speculation, and ultimately used to validate sweeping political conclusions, such as claims of an "institutional crisis", "internal political infighting", "corporate collapse", or "human rights repression". Audiences may recognise fragments of truth without realising that the conclusions extend far beyond what the available evidence supports.
The third is the "internationalisation of domestic issues" model. Domestic incidents are brought before overseas forums, reports, or advocacy campaigns with the aim of orchestrating international pressure. International attention to issues such as human rights, democracy, and freedom of expression is a normal feature of modern international relations. However, when such internationalisation relies on one-sided information, disregards the domestic legal context, or portrays individuals found to have violated the law as political symbols, it becomes an instrument of political pressure rather than objective dialogue.
The fourth is the "manufactured corporate crisis" model. Banks, major businesses, and well-known domestic brands that play an important role in maintaining economic stability may become targets of calculated campaigns to politicise commercial issues in order to instigate wider crises. For example, taking advantage of public dissatisfaction relating to land clearance, together with information concerning cooperation between certain banks and enterprises involved in the Red River Landscape Boulevard Project, some anti-government accounts associated with Thoibao.de and Viet Tan called for actions such as withdrawing deposits from banks financing the project, boycotting those banks, using financial pressure to halt the project, and even encouraging coordinated bank withdrawals to "pressure the authorities".
Similarly, when VinFast sought to enter highly competitive markets in the US and Europe, criticism of its products, services, or business strategy was inevitable. However, when such criticism mutated into politically motivated allegations, attribution of improper motives, unsupported accusations, rumours of bankruptcy, or claims of market manipulation without evidence, legal issues began to arise. A banking crisis can threaten the stability of an entire national financial system, while the reputation of a brand is critical to a company's success. Consequently, cross-border campaigns disseminating harmful information may devestate not only the businesses concerned but also market confidence, investor sentiment, and the country's international image.
The legal actions initiated by Vingroup and VinFast overseas illustrate how Vietnamese enterprises have leveraged the legal systems of countries such as Germany, Canada, and the US to combat what they regard as defamatory attacks on their businesses. The laws of many jurisdictions permit companies to bring legal proceedings where they believe that their commercial reputation, business standing, or economic interests have been harmed by false statements.
Living abroad therefore does not mean immunity from legal responsibility. Geographical distance may make enforcement more complex, but it does not invalidate the fundamental principle that freedom of expression carries with it the responsibility to respect the truth, the dignity of others, and the lawful rights and interests of individuals and organisations. A civilised society should not fear debate, but neither can it countenance deliberate fabrication. A state governed by the rule of law does not prohibit criticism, but it is entitled to protect itself against misinformation, defamation, incitement, and manipulation.
Given global legal trends and the rapid expansion of cyberspace, safeguarding national institutions and the legitimate rights and interests of organisations and individuals requires countries to unite to combat cross-border crime, including cybercrime and the spread of false information. With its growing political standing and increasingly recognised international position, Viet Nam is well placed to participate in and contribute to advancing this international effort.
Link to the original article
