Vietnam's social media proposal raises questions beyond child safety

Vietnam is considering new restrictions on how children under 16 use social media. Under a proposed amendment to existing regulations, young users would still be able to access and view content online, but social media platforms shall introduce technical solutions to make sure that these users cannot post, comment, share content or react to posts.

It is important to note that this is not Vietnam's first attempt to regulate children's use of social media. Since 2024, children under 16 have already been required to use social media accounts registered by a parent or legal guardian, who is responsible for supervising their activities online. The new proposal builds on that framework by limiting how those accounts can interact on social media platforms.

The proposal could be seen as a middle ground between a complete ban on social media and unrestricted access. According to Dr Gordon Ingram, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at RMIT University Vietnam, “this could help protect vulnerable young people from exploitation, but it also may leave some of them with less social contact overall, and feeling upset that they are not trusted to use social media fully.”

One potential benefit of limiting interactions is reducing children's exposure to online risks.

“Child safety is a key benefit, since if children are not leaving a digital footprint online, they are less vulnerable to adult predators – whether for sexual grooming, financial scams, or radicalisation,” Dr Ingram said.

He added that passive social media use may also be less addictive because it removes some of the social rewards and “dopamine hits” associated with likes and comments.

However, Dr Ingram cautioned that limiting interactions could create unintended consequences.

“Psychologists have long believed that passive use or ‘doomscrolling’ can be more dangerous than active use. Active use tends to involve the forming of meaningful social connections, whereas passive use is like ‘channel surfing’ on TV – a negative, unfulfilling way to spend time,” he said.

Dr Ingram also warned that some teenagers may attempt to bypass the restrictions by creating adult accounts or moving to alternative platforms and private groups where their online activities are less visible to parents and guardians. As a result, child-specific safeguards such as stricter privacy settings or limits on contact from strangers may no longer apply.

According to Dr Huo Chong Ling, Senior Lecturer in Software Engineering at RMIT University Vietnam, this is a common cybersecurity challenge. When security controls are too restrictive, people often look for workarounds.

“Rules need to be practical if we want people to follow them. If they are difficult to follow, people may choose to bypass them,” Dr Ling said.

At the same time, these implementation challenges should not be taken as a reason to abandon regulation.

“We do not remove speed limits just because some drivers speed. Instead, we improve enforcement and use technology to support the rules. The same principle applies here. Social media regulations should be supported by effective age verification, platform accountability, and parental involvement,” he said.

Dr Ling believes a combination of safeguards is likely to work better than relying solely on limits on posting or commenting.

“Not every online interaction is harmful. A teenager sharing artwork with classmates is very different from communicating with strangers in a public Facebook group. A blanket ban on all interactions does not distinguish between these situations,” he pointed out.

The bigger concern, according to Dr Ling, is who children interact with and what content they are exposed to. Risks such as cyberbullying, online scams, contact from unknown adults and recommendation algorithms repeatedly promoting harmful content are generally more serious than allowing a child to post a comment.

“This is where technology can help. Private accounts by default, blocking messages from strangers, tighter controls over who can comment, AI systems that detect bullying or grooming attempts, screen-time reminders, and parental supervision tools can all reduce risk while still allowing young people to benefit from social media,” Dr Ling said.

The RMIT academic believes the goal should not be to stop children from interacting online altogether. It should be to make their overall online experience much safer while still allowing them to access useful information and educational content.

“The government should set clear child-safety standards, while platforms build those protections into their systems through better privacy settings, parental controls, and safer platform design. That combination is likely to provide more effective protection for young users,” Dr Ling said.

In addition,Dr Ingram noted that Australia’s experience with its social media ban highlights another issue beyond age verification and enforcement: the voices of young people themselves are often missing from the consultation period.

He said that as Vietnam considers the proposal, policymakers should ensure children and teenagers – particularly those from vulnerable or marginalised groups, who may find it easier to connect with people online than offline – are meaningfully involved in discussions about rules that will directly affect their online lives.

Story: Ngoc Hoang

Thumbnail image: Thawatchai Images – stock.adobe.com | Masthead image: WESTOCK – stock.adobe.com