Vietnam’s Digital Dilemma: Building Trust in the Age of Deepfakes
Vietnam is confronting a new and formidable challenge as it accelerates its ambitious digital transformation: the rise of synthetic media that can deceive, manipulate, and erode public trust on an unprecedented scale. The threat is no longer confined to the technical realm of cybersecurity; it has expanded into the very fabric of social and political life. As artificial intelligence makes it cheaper, faster, and easier to create hyper-realistic deepfakes—videos, audio recordings, and images that are virtually indistinguishable from reality—the country’s leadership, media, and legal experts are scrambling to construct a comprehensive defense. This is not just about blocking malicious software or hacking attempts anymore. It is about safeguarding the integrity of public discourse, maintaining faith in institutions, and ensuring that the digital future Vietnam is building is not undermined by a poisoned information environment. The response now requires a coordinated effort that spans legal reform, public communication strategies, data governance, and institutional collaboration, marking a significant evolution in how the nation perceives and manages the risks of the digital age.
The urgency of this task is amplified by the very policies that are driving Vietnam’s technological leap forward. A landmark resolution has set the nation on a course for rapid advancements in technology, infrastructure, and the digital economy, opening up vast opportunities for growth and innovation. However, this same wave of progress has also widened the attack surface for deception. The same tools that enable efficient public services and economic growth are now being weaponized to spread fabricated videos, orchestrate sophisticated impersonation scams, and launch algorithm-driven misinformation campaigns. The country’s forward momentum has, in effect, created new vulnerabilities, turning the information space into a battleground where trust is the primary casualty. The very systems designed to connect and inform citizens can be subverted to deceive them, creating a paradox where progress and peril are inextricably linked. This stark reality has sharpened the debate among officials and experts, who recognize that the nation’s digital destiny depends on its ability to secure not just its networks, but the very idea of truth in the public square.
Experts like Le Thanh Tung, a prominent voice on communication and public knowledge, argue that the fundamental nature of the information risk has changed. Previously, harmful content could be identified and removed after it appeared. Now, artificial intelligence can generate vast quantities of misleading text, images, and audio in moments, with deepfakes mimicking faces and voices with startling accuracy. The danger, as Tung explains, is not inherent in the technology itself, but in its deployment. Malicious actors can combine these synthetic media with big data and recommendation algorithms to target individuals based on their psychological profiles, interests, or life circumstances, making the spread of misinformation brutally efficient. Once emotionally charged or believable false content begins to circulate, its sheer repetition can make it feel credible, even when it is entirely fabricated. This shift demands a proactive, rather than reactive, approach to information defense. The old model of waiting for a hoax to go viral and then debunking it is obsolete. Authorities and media organisations must now be able to identify suspicious narratives, unusual distribution patterns, and signs of coordinated fabrication at the very outset, and they cannot afford to leave information vacuums that rumors and distortions will inevitably fill.
To meet this challenge, a new concept is emerging: a “digital shield” for the nation’s information space. This is not envisioned as a single software product, but as a multi-layered capability that integrates technology, human expertise, and institutional cooperation. It would function in three key, simultaneous phases. First, it must provide early warnings by constantly monitoring for unusual topics, sources, and digital sharing patterns that suggest manipulation. Second, it must enable rapid verification by creating seamless communication channels between authorities, trusted databases, subject-matter experts, and the press, allowing for quick confirmation of facts. Third, it must support proactive communication, ensuring that accurate, engaging, and multimedia information is pushed out to the affected public as soon as the facts are established. While artificial intelligence can be a powerful tool within this system—helping to map information needs, identify gaps in public understanding, and distribute verified content—Tung is adamant that human responsibility must remain the central pillar. Algorithms can assist in the fight, but they cannot be the final arbiters of truth. Oversight, accountability, and human judgment are essential to ensure that the digital shield protects the public rather than simply automating a new form of control.
Vietnam’s legal framework is also racing to catch up with the speed of technological change. A new suite of laws concerning data, personal data protection, and cybersecurity has come into force or is set to be implemented in the coming years, creating a much-needed foundation for managing risk and assigning responsibility. However, experts readily acknowledge that legislation is struggling to keep pace with the relentless evolution of deepfake tools. The laws are a vital first step, but they must be flexible enough to remain enforceable as techniques become more sophisticated. The priority is to establish clear principles, define legal responsibilities for different actors in the AI ecosystem, and create thresholds for what constitutes harm, all while leaving room for technical updates, controlled testing, and inter-agency coordination. The balance is delicate. On one hand, the harms are concrete and growing, with citizens increasingly falling victim to cross-border scams, impersonation of state officials, fraudulent electronic contracts, and AI-assisted identity theft. Many of these victims are not naive lawbreakers but ordinary people who simply lack access to timely and reliable legal guidance. On the other hand, overly restrictive rules could stifle the very innovation and private-sector growth that Vietnam is eager to foster. The challenge is to build a legal and regulatory environment strong enough to deter abuse, yet flexible enough to support legitimate experimentation and lawful information access.
Seeing the human toll of fraud, some experts are proposing innovative solutions that blend legal aid with artificial intelligence. Dr. Nghiem Vu Khai, a former vice president of a major science and technology association, advocates for a national, AI-powered digital legal assistance system. This system would serve as a one-stop resource for citizens and organisations, offering official legal information, personalized advice, and timely warnings about potential scams. It could also support legal education and public dissemination efforts while ensuring that all data is secure and up-to-date. This idea underscores a broader shift in thinking: that the fight against deepfakes is not just about censorship or technical fixes, but also about building a more informed and resilient citizenry. If people have a trusted, accessible resource to verify legal and financial information, they become less susceptible to deception. This approach also highlights the need for clear accountability across the entire chain of AI-generated content, from the developers who create the models and the platforms that distribute them, to the individuals who deploy them for malicious purposes. The message is clear: the creators and distributors of AI-driven disinformation, particularly when it threatens public order or personal dignity, must be held accountable.
In the end, Vietnam’s journey to build a digital shield is a test run for the entire region, and indeed the world, as it grapples with the corrosive power of synthetic media. The nation is navigating a difficult tightrope, attempting to foster a thriving digital economy and innovative tech sector while simultaneously protecting its citizens from new and evolving forms of manipulation. The risk of failure is double-edged: a weak information environment could erode public confidence in e-government services, discourage adoption of digital payments, and create a heavy compliance burden for businesses. Conversely, a heavy-handed response could chill innovation and restrict lawful freedom. The path forward, as Vietnamese policymakers are discovering, lies in a middle way. It requires not just laws, but the development of robust verification systems, rapid and transparent public communication strategies, and a clear and fair allocation of liability. Vietnam is treating the emergence of deepfakes not as a distant, futuristic hypothesis, but as an imminent challenge that tests its institutional readiness, the clarity of its legal system, and the resilience of public trust. The next several years will be critical in determining whether its response can keep pace with the very technology it aims to contain, setting a precedent for how a nation can defend its information space in the age of artificial intelligence.