▲ AI ChatGPT and others
A revised Information and Communications Network Act aimed at addressing online false and manipulated information went into effect today (July 7), launching new reporting and processing systems for major online platforms.
With the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and social media, concerns over the distribution of manipulated content, such as fake images and videos, are growing. Under the new rules, platforms of a certain size must establish operational policies for responding to false and manipulated information. They are also required to implement internal response systems, including procedures for receiving and processing reports, notifying users, and publishing transparency reports.
While the government explains that the system is designed to curb the repeated distribution of false information—the illegality of which has been confirmed by court rulings—and to reduce user harm, some critics worry about the potential for suppressed expression or excessive deletion of content based on platform judgments.
In particular, as the line between false information and personal opinion or criticism can be blurred, there are concerns that reports could be abused or that platforms may apply different standards. Establishing transparent operational criteria and effective appeal procedures is expected to be a key challenge for the successful implementation of the system.
The issue of online false information has emerged as a new social challenge as the recent spread of generative AI has made it easier to create fake images, videos, and manipulated content.
False information has caused social costs by spreading in various forms, including defamation, fraud, confusion during disasters, and false claims related to elections.
In particular, the recurring distribution of false information aimed at generating advertising and sponsorship revenue has consistently raised the need for institutional responses.
There have also been frequent criticisms that it is difficult for victims to identify the authors of such content or to receive compensation for damages.
In response, the National Assembly amended the Information and Communications Network Act in January to establish obligations to prevent the distribution of false and manipulated information and to create procedures for victim relief.
Internationally, there is a growing trend of legislation aimed at strengthening the responsibilities of large platforms, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the European Union and the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) in Germany.
As the primary judgment and action regarding false and manipulated information are now entrusted to the operational policies of platforms, experts note that the social responsibility and content management roles of these platforms have become more critical.
The structure is designed so that the government does not directly determine whether information is false; instead, platforms make these judgments based on their own operational policies and the results of third-party fact-checking.
Large-scale platform operators with an average of 1 million or more daily users over the three months prior to the end of the previous year are required to establish operational policies for responding to false and manipulated information and to operate procedures for receiving and processing reports.
Given the user scale, platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and DC Inside are expected to be included.
Furthermore, when a report is filed, platforms must notify the user of the processing result and the reasons behind it, and provide an appeal procedure.
They are also required to regularly publish transparency reports detailing their operational status.
For profit-driven content creators who repeatedly distribute information confirmed as false and manipulated by court rulings at least twice, a fine of up to 1 billion won can be imposed.
The government explains that because fines and punitive damages apply only to creators of a certain size who earn advertising or sponsorship revenue, the scope of application is different from that of general users.
The government also emphasized that simple expressions of opinion, criticism, or political claims themselves are not subject to regulation, and that private messages, such as those on KakaoTalk, are also excluded.
In addition, to ensure the neutrality and transparency of fact-checking organizations, the government has mandated that platforms apply the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) code of principles as a standard for fact-checking activities.
The government explains that while platforms are responsible for the primary judgment and action regarding false and manipulated information, users can still seek mediation through the dispute resolution department of the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC) or pursue legal action in court.
In line with this, the KCSC has expanded its existing defamation dispute resolution department into a nine-member body.
The KCSC also clarified that false and manipulated information itself is not subject to administrative deliberation, and that only illegal information falls under its jurisdiction.
Concerns have been raised that because each platform has different operational policies and judgment criteria, similar posts might be treated differently.
There are also fears that if operators delete content excessively out of fear of legal risks, it could lead to controversies over the infringement of freedom of expression.
The possibility of false information reports being misused as a tool for political or ideological conflict, or the occurrence of so-called "report bombing"—where specific posts are targeted for mass reporting—has also been raised.
However, the neutrality of platforms' judgment criteria and fact-checking systems, as well as the guarantee of freedom of expression, are expected to remain subjects of debate during actual operations.
Ultimately, the success of the new system is seen to depend on how transparently and fairly platforms manage their content processing standards and appeal procedures, while maintaining a balance between curbing false information and guaranteeing freedom of expression.
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.