Talk:Internet censorship in Vietnam

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ddt003.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia blocked in Vietnam[edit]

Wikipedia was blocked in Vietnam on Sept. 26-27. I could it read with OperaTor, but not using a regular a browser. (And of course I could not edit with TOR.) Kauffner (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in Vietnam and it's working fine. DHN (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

facebook.com is blocked since around the 11th November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.19.97.85 (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a joke. Vietnam has really heavy Facebook usage. Everyone has a DNS proxy. They don't even know about the censorship. Kauffner (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, I'm here in Vietnam, and www.facebook.com is blocked. If you're on your own machine, you can get around the DNS blockage, but not all cafe's will let you open facebook's desktop site. It's not fair what they are doing, but it's not really that effective anyways. Still- that doesn't make it right. It is rather offensive, actually.113.172.162.51 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What aboute neutral point view? Are there critics of communism, goverment of vietnam?

Wikipedia: Always available. Facebook: DNS blocked, although intermittently with random ISP at random hours.Tuanminh01 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Article is half done[edit]

Ok I just read this and I can't help but think this only tells half the story. Fact is, there are no online intellectual property laws thereby p2p is a totally acceptable activity and many Internet users partake in it since they are free of the possibility of prosecution. In many 'liberal' countries where there is supposedly no/minimum censorship anyone who uses torrents does so with a heavy hand since you never know if you are the u.s. attorney's next target, either to appease the RIAA or just to make a statement to the public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.60.228 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden to include all censorship?[edit]

This article describes Vietnam censoring The Hunger Games (which has anti-authoritarian themes). Maybe this article should be broadened to include all censorship. LaTeeDa (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the suggestion: 1) broaden scope of current Internet censorship in Vietnam to include censorship of all media, 2) move Internet censorship in Vietnam to Censorship in Vietnam, 3) make Internet censorship in Vietnam a redirect to Censorship in Vietnam. LaTeeDa (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Internet censorship by itself deserves an article. I'm sure the censorship in Vietnam article will have plenty of things to talk about. DHN (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too think we should keep a real Internet censorship in Vietnam article and not just a REDIRECT. Creating a separate Censorship in Vietnam article would be a good thing to do. If a Censorship in Vietnam article is written, the Internet censorship in Vietnam article can be edited to remove any more general information about censorship in other media that has crept in. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I added a paragraph on the issue here: The Hunger Games (film)#Controversies, and linked to this article. That article is getting some traffic. LaTeeDa (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An American in Vietnam, Feb 2013[edit]

Many of the sites this article claims are blocked, are actually not blocked as I can easily reach them here in Ho Chi Minh City, using the local ISP with Google's nameservers.

However, I do notice that Google itself is blocked on and off, as well as Foxnews.com and some other sites. It is very selective.

A year ago, Facebook was commonly blocked, but no more.

There seems to be a shifting tide regarding how Internet censorship is implemented in Vietnam. Also, although I cannot pin it down decisively, there seems to be potential saturation of certain pipes between Vietnam and America at peak usage times. For example, between 8pm and midnight, many U.S. sites are unreachable or at least very slow, while others (ironically, Facebook) are very fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.31.171 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sites are you able to reach? Try Nguoi Viet (an overseas newspaper), RFA, VOA, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. DHN (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to evade censorship by using Google DNS, but I noticed yesterday that that isn't working anymore. I can't get Nguoi Viet or RFA now, but they don't seem to be censoring Facebook. Kauffner (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet censorship in Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate on Instant Messaging section[edit]

It feels short and incomplete. Not only that, there's no source or citations behind it. It suggests that someone believes Yahoo! Messenger is monitored, but it doesn't necessarily means it is. It could be an internet problem when the recipient didn't receive their message. It doesn't feel neutral since it's only calling that application out. Ddt003 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary information on the Blogging Section[edit]

I don't think it's necessary to include "All of these blocks could be bypassed by configuring your computer to use an alternate DNS provider." This feels irrelevant to the article since it's focused on blogging and not how one could bypass censorship. It's distracting the the reader if they want to focus on how blogging in Vietnam is censored. Ddt003 (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism of government section needs more information[edit]

There was lots of talk about criticizing the government, but when it gets to the actual section for it, it feels empty. It should elaborate on other cyber security laws or how several people got arrested for criticizing the government through the internet. Ddt003 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porn[edit]

It feels, however, that the situation changed and now at least some of the main porn sites do not open under normal circumstances. 14.244.114.138 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited info[edit]

@Tysonpusan: Please explain your removal of information about the political censorship. I'm particularly concerned about this edit where you claim that the removed information is not found in the citation, where in fact, it's clearly there. DHN (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - sorry! When I clicked on those links: only this shows up:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120110211146/http://opennet.net/research/data Tysonpusan (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tysonpusan I agree that some sources might be dated. It would be more helpful if you supply a more recent source or tag the info as {{outdated}} to give someone a chance to update them instead of removing them wholesale. DHN (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is a good idea. I'll do that on this page whenever appropriate. Feel free to give any feedback from then on. I'll restore that paragraph you talked about and update the link by replacing the one that leads nowhere with the one you showed me. Tysonpusan (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tysonpusan The cited source in the legal framework section clearly talked about "superstitious" content. DHN (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]