Recently, the Democratic Party wants to restrict conservative politicians on YouTube, who are critical of liberal governments, from spreading fake news. So the Democratic Party has asked YouTube to delete 104 videos that it calls fake news. One example of fake news designated by the Democratic Party includes the claim that the May 18th Gwangju Democratic Uprising was arranged by North Korea’s special forces. Other examples include the president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, having dementia and suspicions about the murder of National Assemblyman Noh Hoe Chan. But Google says it will not regulate the Democratic Party’s claims of fake news because it cannot judge what is true or false. Is it right to regulate the Internet platform in Korea where there is freedom of expression?
First of all, let’s look at the opinion in favor of regulation. First, fake news is a social evil that interferes with democracy in that it confuses and interferes with public through the spread of false information. Second, the number of media, such as
, social networking services (SNS) and blogs, are increasing, and the problem of spreading false information can become serious. Third, in a survey of 1,000 adult men and women, two out of five people believe that YouTube should be regulated because they can’t distinguish fake news.
Next, let’s look at the opinion opposing YouTube regulation. First, it is unclear how much freedom of expression is allowed if the public authority unilaterally sets the standard for freedom of speech and expression. Second, the regulation is not suitable for the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which is a constitutional country, and it can cause various social conflicts. Third, the government turned a blind eye to false rumors concerning mad cow disease, Sewol ferry, and the Tiananmen ship, but now it is using the new system as a political tool. Fourth, if the South Korean government tries to directly control YouTube, which is operated by the global company Google, it will be an international laughing stock. Fifth, there could be anachronistic regulation that monitors the creation of video clips and posting them on social media. Finally, with the change of government, the general programming channels, including KBS, SBS and MBC, and all news and professional channels have been self-censored and broadcasted. They (who is they? It is unclear) are also claiming that they are suppressing the press and only releasing news that is favorable to the current administration.
The pros and cons of YouTube regulation have been expressed because of the falling influence of established media. Recently, the main news ratings of television media outlets plunged to 1%. That's because power intervened in public broadcasting and the public's right to know was not met. So there were people who wanted to satisfy the public's right to know through internet platforms, blogs and single broadcasting. This has led to the spread of false news and false information. Therefore, if the existing institutional media were able to report fairly and objectively, it would satisfy the public's right to know. It would also help prevent the spread of fake news by providing reliable information. The government also needs to explain the need for a 'fact check' to tell users about fake news, rather than regulation. The University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Communications in the U.S. said the university could determine the veracity of information in the following ways: 1. Know the source of the news. 2. Read through the entire article. 3. Check the author. 4. Check the basic data. 5. Check the creation date. 6. Think about your own bias. 7. Ask an expert.
In this way, it is more important for the government to help the public distinguish fake news. Training before critical regulation opens up the opportunity to think about the real function and role of media. This will lead to a society where fake news can be eradicated and healthy information can be obtained.
Seo Seong-Il, cub-reporter email@example.com
<저작권자 © The Campus Journal, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지>