Those who create and post such content must first and foremost be held responsible for their actions. However, it would be insufficient for responsibility to rest solely with users.
Controlling, preventing, and promptly dealing with harmful content must become a direct and ongoing responsibility of social media platforms.
Recent warnings from the authorities show that the hidden side of “online rubbish” is no less concerning than content that appears publicly.
Harmful material can, through algorithms, quickly reach hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. The responsibility of those operating and controlling the systems that distribute such content therefore needs to be recognised more fully and commensurately.
Behind many private groups and communities are activities involving fraud, psychological manipulation, and incitement to violence.
Previously, a number of groups were identified as places where people shared information on loan-sharking, ways to evade debt, how to deal with the police, and even personal experiences of breaking the law.
Such harmful communities have persisted for long periods not necessarily because platforms lack the tools to detect them, but because detection has not been a top priority for cross-border platforms.
Experts say that responsibility needs to be clearly divided at each level: those who post content and those who administer groups or channels involved in violations must be held legally responsible; users need to develop the ability to identify and protect themselves against harmful content; and regulatory agencies must supervise and take strict action.
Alongside these links in the chain, the responsibility of social media platform providers needs to be carefully considered as they are the only actors capable of stopping harmful content at source, before it has a chance to spread widely.
In the digital environment, speed is a decisive factor. A clip that remains online for only a few minutes can be downloaded, edited, and shared across thousands of other accounts. By the time a victim files a complaint or the authorities request intervention, the damage to reputation, psychological wellbeing, public order, or social awareness may already have gone beyond control.
Therefore, the measure of responsibility for cross-border platforms must be reflected in their ability to proactively detect and prevent risks before algorithms have a chance to make such content go viral.
A company that is capable of predicting what users like to watch and which advertisements generate profits is also capable of investing in systems to identify signals of violence, fraud, child abuse, or systematic repeat offending.
For high-risk groups of accounts, early safeguards are needed: reduce recommendations, prevent content from appearing in trending sections, restrict monetisation, warn viewers, and swiftly refer cases for human moderation. Repeat offenders should be subject to stricter monitoring.
This is not about restricting legitimate freedom of expression, but about establishing mechanisms to protect the legitimate rights and interests of organisations and individuals while maintaining a civilised and healthy online environment.
Since July 1, 2026, the Cybersecurity Law has officially come into force, clearly strengthening the responsibilities of enterprises providing services in cyberspace.
Clause 1, Article 14 of the Law stipulates that domestic and foreign enterprises providing services over telecommunications networks, the internet, and value-added services in cyberspace are responsible for implementing management and technical measures to prevent, detect, block, and remove information from systems under their management, or when requested to do so by specialised cybersecurity forces.
Thus, the responsibility of enterprises does not arise only when the authorities request intervention but is also linked to an obligation to proactively prevent and detect harmful content through the systems they operate.
Clause 2, Article 25 of the Law stipulates that, upon request from the specialised cybersecurity forces under the Ministry of Public Security, enterprises must block the sharing of information, delete information, or remove services and applications containing content that violates regulations no later than 24 hours after receiving the request. In urgent cases involving threats to national security, requests to block or delete information must be complied with no later than six hours.
The law also devotes Article 16 specifically to enterprises’ responsibilities in controlling and preventing, as well as developing technical systems to support the handling of, information that causes harm to, abuses, or infringes upon children’s rights in cyberspace.
International trends are also shifting towards system-wide risk management. On July 2, 2026, the European Board for Digital Services and the European Commission published the second annual report under the Digital Services Act (DSA), highlighting obligations to identify, assess, and mitigate systemic risks, ranging from illegal content to risks to children.
The report also pointed out how interface design and automated recommendation mechanisms can lead users to develop addictive-like behaviour, become more easily exposed to harmful content, or be targeted for grooming.
In the UK, the Online Safety Act requires regulated services to assess the risks posed by illegal content and operate appropriate mechanisms to limit users’ exposure to content designated as a priority for blocking.
Both laws reflect a fundamental shift: companies are not only responsible for allowing a specific piece of unlawful content to slip through, but must also take responsibility for risks arising from the way they design and operate their systems.
For platforms operating in the Vietnamese market, adequate resources should be allocated to moderation teams with a strong understanding of the Vietnamese language, culture, and laws.
Platforms should proactively identify high-risk accounts, groups, and livestreams at an early stage; take strict action against repeat offenders; provide greater transparency on recommendation principles, mechanisms for limiting dissemination, and data on violations handled; and adjust monetisation mechanisms so as not to continue encouraging negative trends as is currently the case.
The fight against “online rubbish” therefore cannot be seen merely as a technical problem or a matter of handling violations. It is also a struggle to protect social standards in the face of growing pressure from the digital environment.
When cross-border platforms allow harmful, vulgar, and deviant content to spread easily, or even be amplified by algorithms, it not only harms the community but also directly undermines user trust.
Therefore, the responsibility of technology companies must be reflected in the way they design, operate, and control their ecosystems.
