US ex-pats won’t like this. Vietnam is a favorite country to emigrate to. You can’t apply for permanent residency but there’s almost no limit on temporary visas. I think they just require you to leave the country for like 90 days every two or three years.
i think this is a great idea, no more bots
Wait, how is it draconian to stand by your words? This will make it hard to use botnets to kickstart colour revolutions, makes people accountable for their words and sure as shit won’t stop dissidents from complaining. We’ve had whistle-blowers and dissidents before social media. How is this law bad? Now companies like google and Facebook can’t inflate their numbers? Oh no, the horror.
Forcing people to identify themselves on major social platforms then arresting people for any speech critical of the government is what makes it a bad law.
But the government can already accomplish the latter without needing the former. It does make their job much easier.
Not true. In vietnam you can create anonymous accounts and still will be able to after this. This law is another step in tightening the restrictions towards the goal of no anonymity.
Anonymity should only be available to those smart enough to be so. Already too many people share what comes to their mind without consequence and forethought causing a mass increase in far right sentiment and violence. Hate crimes are at an all time high. This is a good law, in fact, every country should have it.
It’s a bad law and no country should have it. I’m against age verification as well, since it’s a step toward forced identification. My area passed age verification, which means I need to set up my network with a VPN so my family is safe from corporations (and thus government) from having even more information about us.
Anonymity is critical for a free society. And yeah, freedom has its own costs, such as hate crime, which I’m well aware of since my SO and therefore kids are minorities. But freedom to publicly criticize your government would be significantly curtailed without anonymity.
Sorry about your luck, but it just so happens your local government doesn’t agree with this opinion. You’re now going to be jailed and beaten until you’re formed, at which point you will be killed. Big brother is watching you
You’re saying that almost as if you tried to imply that colour revolutions are a bad thing.
When half your family is amongst the inevitable dead of said revolution, would you please repeat what you just said?
Colour revolutions are bad by definition. The CIA is always bad, everything they have always done has been bad.
They are
Well, what did you expect from a communist dictatorship?
Is this satire?
If not, who would you say is the dictator of Vietnam?
Dictatorship doesn’t imply that there’s only a single ruler.
That said the situation, as in the power of the Politburo, isn’t as extreme as it was in the USSR or in Vietnam before 1988. But they still have ways to go before they’re at Cuban levels of “wait we’ll have to take a closer look they might actually have come up with a form of democracy constitutionally different from the usual ones”. Cuba is still authoritarian but that seems to be more cultural inertia than tankie ideology. Singapore might actually be a good comparison, not economically but politically.
deleted by creator
It has a government? Then it’s not communist
Technically correct, which is the most tone-deaf kind of correct.
Oh yes, the capitalist country with the capitalist flag all over and a capitalist party, wait… That aint right…
Thx for the easy copy/paste @[email protected]
Its a communist party trying to achieve communism while being in socialism
What exactly do you think communism is?
Stateless, moneyless society, if it has money or a state then its not communist, its socialist, big difference
One is an eternal pipe-dream the other a failure.
Communist is an adjective, and it’s right there in their name:
Under the constitution, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) asserts their role in all branches of the country’s politics and society.
While the country may not be strictly communist, the adjective is absolutely appropriate to describe its ruling party, which is the only party allowed and therefore it’s valid to refer to the entire government by that adjective.
You’re just being obtuse…
If only the US and EU had this to suppress the “Far Right”. Democracy would be protected.
The US is very far right though. In the US something like this will be used to punish women seeking abortions.
That’s not how it works.
All this would do is turn the far right into a slightly more hidden far right.
No, it would make it more explicitly far right. It turns out being able to identify users on also platforms is useful to silence dissent.
Countries don’t do this to oppress their people, they do it because they’ve seen the Internet used to influence right wing extremists by foreign actors.
They do this because they can and because people let them. Every government wants as much control as possible over everything, web being the (relatively) newest target. It’s on us to oppose that.
Umm, wtf?
By definition, this law is authoritarian in its very nature. Far right wing extremism at it’s finest. But only to protect the people from…far right wing extremism???
Umm, sure, if you say so dude. Or, wait a minute, no, you’re completely off your rocker. Like, what the fuck…
deleted by creator
While you raise a good point for a potential reason I can’t imagine having this much faith in a government, where does the optimism stem from?
Not everyone lives in America. Most governments in the world are not just fronts for oligarchs. I trust the current government of my country to act in the better interests of the people most of the time (sadly we live in a capitalist dystopia, so sometimes lobbying can make politicians fuck up). If you don’t trust yours, you should look into what you can do to make a change.
I don’t live in America, I live in Europe, but the fact you believe in the effectiveness of democracy when governments under capitalism exist to protect corporations and maintain balance for the most part - to me shows naiveté more than anything.
I don’t trust the government, nor should you, and there’s nothing short of a revolution that can change that.
Sure, don’t trust your government. What are you trusting then? Sure as hell not corporations, I hope. Yourself? That’s what I would call of naiveté. An individual power is irrelevant in the modern world, even most communities are irrelevant (Lemmy is an example, we’re the 0,001%). Revolution sure is a nice idea, but I don’t see anyone getting off their arses and doing it (talking about it on Lemmy doesn’t matter, it’s a tiny little bubble), and honestly, I don’t even think revolutions are technically possible anymore (the powers that be are very keenly aware of its processes, mechanisms and risks, and media manipulation is so fucking easy these days). So you got to do something, you have to stand behind some power that can actually make a difference: there’s only one real/realistic choice: your government. I’ve seen what happens when the left starts voicing their mistrust of the government too carelessly. The right will take those complaints and shift them into their own, and things will snowball very quickly. People often mistake the idea of trust with the idea of blind faith. You can trust someone/something and still complain and fight against some of their actions and decisions. But you have to pick your battles very carefully. If you want a history lesson, look up what happened with Brazil in the period between 2011-2018. I was there, I lived through history. I can tell you that we should all really be fucking afraid of social medias and the internet, and if a government moves aggressively into regulating that, we should take a step back and think very hard while analysing the whole picture. Even if it looks like authoritarianism, it might still be the correct choice.
“If anyone is going to oppress our people it’s us”
Sure, chief. Whatever you have to tell yourself.
Yes because as we all know there’s a shortage of right wing dipshits who don’t hide their identities.
Don’t even try to reason with people here that governments should be responsible for blocking harmful agents to affect the population. Government control and communism are bad words here, it’s obviously much better to be free to spread misinformation and foreign propaganda, and if you can’t have such freedom, you’re obviously being oppressed by the government. I wish my ““free”” country had done the same ~10 years ago when social media truly became mainstream, and maybe we wouldn’t have suffered a coup d’état that was clearly in the best interests of other nations.
Do you think the government is only removing misinformation and foreign propaganda? I’m in Vietnam right now, the government plays propaganda on a loudspeaker daily. The history they portray over here is verifiably false and intentionally misleading.
It’s almost like having a single party in control of everything is a bad idea…
