Vietnam intends for individuals under 16 to maintain their accounts but refrain from posting on them.

      Vietnam has chosen a peculiar approach to regulate children's online activities. According to a draft decree revealed this week, users under the age of 16 will be allowed to keep their social media accounts but will be prohibited from posting, commenting, or reacting on them. This strategy is more limited than Australia’s total ban and is quite unusual, as it allows children to remain on the platform while stripping them of their ability to communicate. More straightforward bans in other regions have faced challenges, primarily due to the difficulty of verifying users' ages.

      This proposal originates from the nation’s culture ministry, which took on media and broadcasting oversight during a government restructuring last year, and was presented by Deputy Minister Phan Tam on Thursday. The draft is still in progress and may undergo revisions prior to finalization, as reported by Reuters. No date for implementation has been announced.

      Under the new rules, platforms would be tasked with verifying the ages of users and registering accounts for those under 16 using the details of a parent or guardian, an approach that heavily relies on age-verification systems that other governments have struggled to implement effectively. Parents would then be accountable for monitoring their children's viewing habits and the duration of their online activities.

      Additionally, companies would be obligated to proactively identify and warn against materials related to violence, pornography, gambling, drugs, and suicide, while also ensuring the highest level of privacy protections for children's accounts. The intent behind this framework is protective rather than prohibitive, at least on the surface, with the ministry framing it as an effort to create a suitable environment rather than closing access entirely.

      “The primary goal is not to ban or overly restrict children's access to social media, but to ensure that when they do engage with these services, it is in an age-appropriate context,” stated Phan Tam. How platforms will distinguish between a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old remains primarily the responsibility of the platforms. The draft requests companies to implement technical measures to identify child users without detailing those specific measures, a lack of clarity that has plagued similar regulations in other regions.

      In Australia, trials of fictional teenage accounts showed that most major services did not require age verification at all. The timing of Vietnam’s proposal aligns with a broader global trend. Australia was the first country to prohibit under-16s from maintaining accounts when its ban came into effect last December, and it has since strengthened enforcement after initial studies indicated that most teenagers continued to log on. Recently, France’s parliament approved a ban for under-15s, set to be enforced later, while Britain is also considering its own measures. Vietnam’s approach stands out, as it retains access while regulating communication.

      What remains unclear in the publicly revealed draft is the extent of its application. It does not specify which platforms it pertains to, and Vietnam’s largest audiences are on foreign services like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube, which would need to establish the parent-linked registration and verification systems assumed by the regulations. Furthermore, it is uncertain how the posting ban would be enforced once an account is active and a child has already gained access.

      The same draft also aims to tighten gaming regulations by requiring operators to verify player ages and limit playtime for those under 16 to 60 minutes per day per company, a restriction that could be easily bypassed if a child signs up with multiple companies.

      This proposed regulation does not emerge in isolation; Vietnam has been tightening its control over online activities for years, through earlier decrees mandating identity verification for users and eliminating anonymous accounts, along with a cybersecurity law that took effect on July 1. Age restrictions fit neatly within that broader effort.

      For a government that already mandates its citizens to use their real names for online accounts, the rationale is sufficiently consistent. The distinctive feature of this decree, if it withstands revisions, is the boundary it establishes: allowing individuals to consume content online while denying them the ability to respond.