The Framework

Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) issued a ministerial notification in December 2022 that dramatically expanded content removal obligations under the Computer Crime Act, requiring platforms to remove content flagged by public complaints within 24 hours without court authorization or judicial review.^[1] The regulation forces service providers to independently determine whether content violates Section 14 of the Computer Crime Act, which prohibits introducing “false or distorted information” into computer systems—a provision originally intended for technical crimes but now broadly interpreted to encompass political speech and criticism.^[2] Platform operators face criminal liability if they fail to remove content deemed illegal by authorities, creating strong incentives for preemptive censorship, while the MDES gained unilateral authority to issue takedown orders directly to platforms without requiring court approval.^[3] The regulation eliminated users’ ability to appeal removal decisions and compressed the timeline for removing content deemed related to “national security” from 11 days to as little as one day, with platforms required to establish clear reporting mechanisms and comply with takedown orders or face penalties, including revenue-based fines.^[4] In July 2024, Thailand’s Prime Minister issued orders to expedite suppression of false information on social media, particularly regarding government projects like the Digital Wallet initiative, with MDES and the Technology Crime Suppression Division forming working groups to analyze content.[5] Between October 2022 and December 2023, MDES reported blocking 45,024 URLs under the expanded framework, including over 16,000 websites in April 2024 alone—a 26-fold increase from the previous month.^[6] The government is also considering new amendments to further streamline takedown procedures, with draft notifications under review in February 2025 that would expand the definition of “social media” and create additional safe harbor provisions for platforms that implement notice-and-takedown policies.^[7]

Implications for U.S. Technology Leadership

The 24-hour removal deadline represents an unreasonable compliance burden designed to be practically impossible for U.S. platforms operating at scale, as they must review thousands of Thai-language complaints daily while determining whether content violates intentionally vague provisions about “false information” or “public order” without any judicial guidance or clear legal standards. This framework exploits the foreign status of U.S. technology companies, allowing Thai authorities to assert arbitrary power over American firms that lack domestic political leverage to resist, while using the threat of criminal liability and revenue-based fines to compel compliance with censorship demands that serve the government’s political interests rather than legitimate law enforcement objectives.^[8] The regulation creates an extractive revenue mechanism where U.S. platforms face a no-win scenario: Either over-censor content and alienate users, or risk substantial fines for under-enforcement of ambiguous standards that authorities can interpret retroactively to maximize penalties against foreign companies.

Thailand’s weaponization of content moderation requirements against U.S. firms demonstrates how governments exploit jurisdictional asymmetries to extract both compliance and revenue from American technology companies that cannot meaningfully contest unreasonable demands in local political systems. The compressed timelines and vague standards ensure consistent non-compliance opportunities, transforming content moderation into a revenue-generation tool where authorities can selectively enforce violations against deep-pocketed U.S. firms while ignoring domestic competitors, creating a discriminatory enforcement regime that systematically transfers wealth from American companies to foreign governments.^[9] As this extractive model spreads across Southeast Asia, U.S. platforms face escalating compliance costs and legal risks, undermining the competitive position of American technology leadership in the region’s rapidly growing digital markets.

Endnotes