Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia Stringent obligations placed on internet and technological companies under the LOCS also increase risks that companies may adopt measures in contravention of the rights to privacy, free expression and information in order to protect themselves from government sanctions. In June 2019, the MIC reportedly warned users and companies to refrain from placing advertisements on videos hosted by YouTube which allegedly promote “antiState propaganda”, noting that it had found approximately 55,000 “harmful” YouTube videos, of which 8,000 were removed following requests from Vietnamese authorities.504 Meanwhile, in its Transparency Report, Facebook noted that in the last six months of 2018, it had restricted 1,553 posts and three profiles in Vietnam as opposed to 265 “restrictions” in the six months prior, and only 22 “restrictions” in the last six months of 2017. Facebook noted that while the 2017 “restrictions” had been made pursuant to “private reports related to defamation”, “restrictions” in 2018 were made mostly “in response to reports” from the MPS and MIC, and “restrictions” in the latter half of 2018 largely “related to content alleged to violate Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP, including anti-state content, defamation of public officials, and the spread of false information.”505 (emphasis added) These figures do not show the exact content Google’s YouTube and Facebook removed. The data does reflect how ICT companies can face increased pressure to remove data from their platforms through the wielding of laws targeting cybersecurity – such as was the case with Decree No. 72 – and intensifies concerns that the LOCS can be misused in a similar manner.506 It is evident that although Vietnam promulgated the LOCS to enhance cybersecurity, its provisions focus more on content regulation and narrowing the exercise of free expression and information online by individual internet users. For instance, it obliges private ICT companies to enforce such limitations in line with the Vietnamese government – outsourcing regulatory capacity to private companies which may lack accountability.507 effect-amid-criticism 504 James Pearson, ‘Vietnam ramps up pressure on Google’s YouTube advertisers’, Reuters, 12 June 2019, Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-cyber-google/vietnam-ramps-uppressure-on-googles-youtube-advertisers-idUSKCN1TD0FC 505 Data available at: https://transparency.facebook.com/content-restrictions/country/VN 506 In April 2018, more than 50 Vietnamese human rights activists and independent media groups addressed an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, the Chief Executive Officer of Facebook Inc., alleging that “after (the) high-profile agreement to coordinate with a government that is known for suppressing expression online and jailing activists, the problem of account suspension and content takedown has only grown more acute”. See Mai Nguyen, ‘Vietnam activists question Facebook on suppressing dissent’, Reuters, 10 April 2018, Available at: https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-facebook-privacy-vietnam/vietnam-activists-question-facebook-on-suppressing-dissentidUSKBN1HH0DO 507 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 131