In the past, ideological work was conducted primarily through newspapers, publishing, radio, television, conferences, organisational activities, and socio-cultural institutions.
Today, its scope has expanded to the internet, social media, online communities, and AI-powered interactive systems. Information is produced at extraordinary speed, spreads almost instantaneously across geographical boundaries, and is increasingly personalised through algorithms.
Therefore, ideological struggle is no longer confined to debates between openly expressed viewpoints. It now takes place within the very processes through which users form their perceptions, emotions, beliefs, and behaviours.
The most visible change concerns the information environment itself. The traditional one-way communication model — in which press agencies selected, verified, and distributed information — has given way to a multidirectional, multi-actor environment characterised by continuous interaction. Individuals can simultaneously consume, comment on, create, and disseminate content. Information originating from virtually any country can reach Vietnamese users almost instantly, bringing different value systems and interpretations of events into the same space, where they coexist and compete for attention.
At the same time, no single actor can control the entire flow of information. Millions of new pieces of content appear every day, ranging from official information, commercial, and entertainment material to personal commentary, AI-generated content and unverified reports. The challenge for ideological work is therefore no longer simply to disseminate official information but to ensure that such information can be found, read, understood, trusted, and shared.
Speed represents one of the most easily exploited vulnerabilities. In many cases, unverified reports emerge before official information becomes available. Even a brief information vacuum can allow speculation and unfounded accusations to take hold and shape public opinion before competent authorities respond. Generative AI presents unprecedented challenges to the authenticity of information sources.
Previously, information was created by individuals or organisations. Today, algorithms can generate text, images, audio, and video that increasingly resemble authentic material. Internet users can no longer automatically assume that everything they see or hear online is genuine or attributable to an identifiable, accountable source.
Another sophisticated tactic involves emotional manipulation. On social media, the content that spreads most rapidly is not necessarily the most informative or insightful. Instead, it is often material designed to shock, provoke controversy, or deepen divisions. Much of this content is created not to impart knowledge but to trigger emotional reactions. Ideological work must therefore address both misinformation and emotional manipulation, paying close attention to public sentiment rather than focusing solely on the content of messages.
Ideological struggle is also increasingly intertwined with the contest over data. Politburo Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW (dated December 22, 2024) identifies data as a key priority while emphasising the need to ensure cybersecurity, data security, and information safety. Data play an important role in shaping how society perceives and evaluates reality.
On October 1, at the Party Central Committee Headquarters, General Secretary and State President To Lam chaired a working session with the Party Central Committee's Commission for Publicity and relevant agencies on ideological issues, public sentiment, and the mobilisation of the combined strength of communication agencies.
At the meeting, he called for the development of a shared data system to support ideological work.
Another fundamental change concerns the actors involved. Every official, Party member, and citizen can now become a communicator. This creates a vast potential force for ideological work, but it also means that a single thoughtless share can inadvertently contribute to the spread of fake news.
These developments point to an overarching requirement: ideological work must shift from a reactive approach to one based on "proactive forecasting, guidance, and control." This transition must be underpinned by an enhanced capacity to master the digital environment, proactively monitor, analyse, guide, and manage information through appropriate technologies, data systems, institutions, and human resources.
First, it is necessary to develop and operate a digital ideological ecosystem. Rather than establishing isolated communication channels, an interconnected ecosystem should be created, bringing together the press, publishing houses, research institutions, universities, state management agencies, socio-political organisations, and digital media platforms.
Second, a rapid information response mechanism must be established. Such a mechanism should enable the early detection of emerging issues in cyberspace, classification and verification of information, assessment of potential impacts, and selection of appropriate responses. Rapid responses must therefore also be accurate and carefully targeted.
Third, science and data must become the foundation of efforts to counter misinformation and misleading viewpoints. Persuasive rebuttals should rely not merely on assertions but on verifiable evidence. Each issue should be examined within its historical, legal, and socio-economic context, supported by specific data. Inaccurate claims must be identified and addressed using information from sources that can be independently verified. Specifically, scientists, experts, and research institutions should play a greater role in providing the scientific evidence needed to support ideological communication.
Fourth, AI should be used proactively but responsibly. AI can assist with research, data analysis, trend detection, document synthesis, content production and information personalisation. However, it can also generate inaccurate information, fabricated content, or amplify biases if used without adequate oversight. Clear principles for the responsible use of AI in ideological work are therefore essential. AI applications must be subject to appropriate controls, with human beings retaining ultimate responsibility for published content.
Furthermore, digital media ethics must become an integral part of the professional culture of ideological work.
Fifth, technological capabilities among personnel engaged in ideological work must be strengthened. In the digital age, these personnel not only need political and theoretical knowledge but also the ability to understand and effectively use digital technologies in their professional activities. Digital competence is becoming an essential component of professional capacity in ideological work.
Sixth, society's resilience against misleading information must be enhanced. A sustainable and substantive approach to ideological struggle cannot be limited to addressing misinformation. More importantly, it must involve society as a whole by strengthening the public's ability to protect itself against information-related risks. When internet users become better equipped to analyse and verify information, the information environment will also develop a greater capacity for self-correction.
The digital age has fundamentally transformed the environment, participants, speed, and tools of ideological struggle. The priority, therefore, is not merely to rebut misinformation but also to proactively foster a healthy information environment, provide accurate and timely information, explain policies through data and evidence, and promote dialogue.
At the same time, it is essential to strengthen the digital capabilities of those engaged in ideological work and enhance the ability of individuals and society to protect themselves against information-related risks. Through these efforts, ideological work can become a source of soft power contributing to national development.
