Vietnam’s government has moved to restrict access to the Telegram messaging platform, instructing local internet and telecom providers to block the service. The decision is based on accusations that Telegram has not acted to stop what officials label as illegal content and politically sensitive activities conducted by users on its platform.
Citing data from the Ministry of Public Security, a government statement claimed that many Telegram channels and groups in Vietnam have been used to circulate so-called “toxic” material. These include allegations of promoting anti-state views, facilitating scams, selling private data, and enabling drug-related offenses.
Authorities assert that Telegram has ignored domestic regulations requiring platforms to actively monitor for prohibited content, remove offending material, and prevent its recurrence. The government also argues that Telegram has not registered as a telecommunications business in accordance with Vietnamese law.
“Telegram is surprised by these statements,” said a spokesperson for the company. “We received a formal notice from the Authority of Communications regarding a standard service notification procedure required under new telecoms regulations. The deadline for the response is May 27,” they added.
This move fits into a broader strategy by the ruling Communist Party to assert control over the online information space. Last year, foreign tech companies operating in Vietnam were ordered to confirm users’ identities and hand them over to authorities on request, a measure widely seen as a way to suppress political speech and dissent.
Unlike in China, Vietnamese users still have access to global platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. However, the government frequently cracks down on digital speech it deems hostile to the state. Online users have been jailed for sharing views that challenge or criticize the government.
The push to further tighten control over internet content has been escalating. The now-defunct Ministry of Information and Communications had been at the forefront of efforts to limit what it brands as “anti-state” content, advancing policies that undermine free expression under the pretext of protecting national security.
