No O No: 3 times "flew the channel" but still "alive and well", revealing the backer?

A TikToker has had his channel deleted three times for posting toxic videos and has been administratively punished twice, but still has 1.3 million followers. This alarming situation has caused a stir on social networks and received strong discussion.

No O No, real name Pham Duc Tuan, born in 1996, from Phu Quoc, Kien Giang and currently living in Ho Chi Minh City. He is known as a TikToker with a unique style of reviewing dining locations, often using words, phrases and behaviors that are considered vulgar and harmful.

No O No's content has caused many mixed opinions in the online community. Some people think that his style is humorous, straightforward and dares to speak the truth. However, the majority are angry at him for using uncultured language, insulting others and creating toxic content, negatively affecting young people.

Recently, the online community continued to be stirred up by the news that No O No was again fined 30 million VND for insulting famous people and national heroes.

This is not the first time Tuan has caused controversy with toxic content. At the end of 2022, he was fined 7.5 million VND for a series of videos "What the poor eat, No O No gives them food" with contemptuous words. A TikTok channel with more than 600,000 followers was also deleted. In early 2023, another channel with more than 50,000 followers, containing old content, continued to be "erased".

His channel was deleted three times and he was fined twice, with a total fine of 37.5 million VND. However, it is worth mentioning that after each time he was punished, Tuan's followers not only did not decrease but also skyrocketed. From 50,000, this number jumped to 1.3 million. It was still the same old trick: unique, toxic content, regardless of negative reactions to attract views and interactions.

Most netizens expressed their agreement with the administrative punishment for insulting celebrities and national heroes. They said that this was necessary to deter similar acts and protect cultural and historical values. Many also said that the fine was not enough of a deterrent and that stronger measures were needed.

A significant number of people expressed concerns about the negative impact of these contents on young people, especially in terms of awareness and behavior. They said that there should be better educational measures and guidance for young people when using social networks.

However, are Vietnamese social media users inadvertently supporting and creating conditions for this toxic content to exist and develop? Of the 1.3 million followers of "Tuấn không myopia", how many people actually like the content? How many people are just "lurking" to "watch for changes" or even cause controversy on social media?

Some people expressed disappointment with the "culture" of a segment of social media users, when nonsense, clickbait content is more interested than positive, valuable content. Many social media users called for a strong boycott of toxic content and channels. They believe that this is the only way to prevent the spread of toxic content.

In China, artists who commit deviant acts, violate the law or ethics can be immediately "banned" (banned from broadcasting, banned from artistic activities). The Vietnamese online community can completely apply similar actions by strongly boycotting TikTokers, Facebookers, and YouTubers with toxic and nonsense content.

Despite No No’s efforts to rebuild his image, his wrongdoings have left him in a spiral of anger and boycott. The question is whether No No can one day regain the trust of the online community and revive his career, or will he just be a name left behind in the turbulent world of social media?

Clip of No O No posting an apology again, public opinion is skeptical, online community determined to pursue Phạm Đông11:25:35 11/12/2024Recently, a remarkable phenomenon has appeared on TikTok, when a series of accounts claiming to be No O No continuously posted apology videos. This inevitably made the online community doubt the authenticity of these videos.