Previous 36 / 63 Next

Vietnam ARTICLE 19 Finally, as mentioned earlier, state actors such as Force 47 and civilian counterparts have become skilled at abusing content moderation systems by flagging legitimate content as violating a platform’s rules in an attempt to have the user’s account suspended or the content removed.141 In general, tech companies seem to be struggling with how to respond to this. Meta’s reaction is discussed in the following case study. Case study: Facebook in Vietnam In Vietnam, Meta is increasingly facilitating censorship and complying with government demands to silence criticism on its platform. Meta’s transparency data shows that for the 30 months between January 2020 and June 2022, it removed 6,039 pieces of content at the request of the Vietnamese Government, including posts, pages, groups, and profiles.142 Although Meta receives a large number of content removal requests from Vietnam, this is fewer than from other countries in the region, likely because Vietnam has so effectively mobilised aggressive mass campaigns to use Meta’s own reporting features against groups or individuals who criticise the government.143 Removals linked to these campaigns would not be accounted for in Meta’s transparency reporting.144 Meta reports that the removed content referenced in its transparency data was restricted because the government claimed that it violated local laws on slander and insult under Decree No. 72/2013, spreading COVID-19 misinformation, and opposing the Communist Party and Government of Vietnam. As such, Meta itself acknowledges it is complying with content takedown requests which clearly do not align with international human rights law. This explanation is given on a summary basis without any additional details about the nature of the removal requests. Unofficially, Meta may also be facilitating freedom of expression violations. A 2023 Washington Post article quoted 2 anonymous former employees who claimed that Facebook had a private list of Communist Party officials who should not be criticised on the platform. Meta did not respond to the Post’s inquiries on this point, except to say that its focus was on ensuring as many Vietnamese as possible could use the platform to express themselves.145 Vietnam is of particular significance to Meta; since 2016, it has become one of Facebook’s biggest growth markets, representing its seventh-largest user base globally and providing ____________________________________________ 141 D. Keeton-Olsen, The Vietnamese Military Has a Troll Army and Facebook Is Its Weapon, Rest of World, 8 May 2023. 142 Meta Transparency Center, Content Restrictions Based on Local Law. 143 Keeton-Olsen, The Vietnamese Military Has a Troll Army. 144 Biddle, Facebook Lets Vietnam’s Cyberarmy Target Dissidents. 145 R. Tan, Facebook Helped Bring Free Speech to Vietnam: Now it’s Helping Stifle It, Washington Post, 19 June 2023. 36

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Engaging tech for internet freedom in authoritarian countries

Report

Preview

Language

English

Topic

Information Operation
Internet Restrictions

Author(s)

Article 19

Date Published: Oct 5, 2024

Abstract: In this report, ARTICLE 19 reviews the human rights context and responsibilities of tech companies operating in 3 authoritarian countries in Asia, namely China, Myanmar, and Vietnam. It focuses on the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, and the manner in which authoritarian states directly or indirectly expect companies to assist them in censoring content, promoting propaganda, accessing user data, and engaging in surveillance. While these are undoubtedly highly challenging contexts, companies have not sufficiently prioritised protecting human rights in their policies and actions. States are the primary duty bearers under international human rights law, but companies also have human rights responsibilities, as outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Even if domestic law or circumstances make it impossible for companies to fully meet their human rights responsibilities, they should take action so as to respect human rights standards to the greatest extent possible. Tech companies should not merely reference local law as an excuse for collaborating in rights violations. They should take steps such as those detailed in this report, like adopting appropriate policies, asking governments to justify content removal requests clearly and specifically, and reporting transparently on their compliance with government demands. For each country, we survey the country context and provide an overview of legal obligations which companies operate under that are problematic from the perspective of international human rights law and that may, as a result, put pressure on companies to become complicit in violations of the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. We then explore how Western tech companies operating in these countries, many of which have explicitly stated their commitment to respecting freedom of expression and privacy, have responded to these legal obligations and to other government expectations that they will cooperate in violations of these rights.

Link: source

Primary Documents

ETIF-Thematic-Report-12Sep-24.pdf
English
Download View

Myanmar Internet Project

Select target paragraph3

Engaging tech for internet freedom in authoritarian countries

Primary Documents

Notifications