"Will my KakaoTalk conversations also be monitored?"

"Can the government label posts it dislikes as fake news and delete them?"

As the revised Information and Communications Network Act aimed at countering online misinformation and disinformation takes effect today (July 7), users are raising questions and concerns over potential government censorship, monitoring of private messages, and the authority of fact-checking organizations.

The core of the new system is to require large-scale platforms with an average of 1 million or more daily users to establish reporting and processing procedures for misinformation and disinformation, as well as damage relief systems.

The government explains that the system is not structured for the government to directly determine what is false or order the deletion of posts, and private, one-on-one conversations on services like KakaoTalk are also not subject to the law.

It also maintains that the system does not allow a specific fact-checking agency to make the final determination on misinformation, nor does it target YouTubers or social media accounts critical of the administration. However, controversies remain over the platforms' criteria for judgment and the protection of freedom of expression.

On the first day of implementation, we have compiled the main questions, misconceptions, and what users need to know about the new system in a Q&A format.

-- Will my social media posts also be subject to regulation?

▲ The government explains that simple expressions of opinion, criticism, or political arguments themselves are not subject to regulation.

The targets of regulation are the distribution of misinformation, disinformation, or illegal information.

However, fines or punitive damages apply to information publishers of a certain scale or larger, and each must meet separate legal requirements.

-- Does the government directly judge or delete misinformation?

▲ No.

The government explains that it does not directly determine whether information is false or manipulated, nor does it order the deletion of posts.

It is structured so that platforms make judgments and take necessary actions according to their own operating policies.

Whether fines are imposed or damages are awarded is ultimately subject to a court decision.

-- What should I do if I find misinformation or disinformation?

▲ Anyone can report it to the platform operator.

When reporting, you must submit the specific location, such as the post's URL, the reason for reporting, supporting evidence, and the reporter's contact information and name.

-- How do platforms respond when they receive a report?

▲ Large-scale platforms with an average of 1 million or more daily users must notify the parties involved of the report upon receiving it.

Afterward, they can take measures such as deletion, blocking, restricting exposure, or suspending accounts in accordance with their own operating policies.

If action is taken, the reason and the objection procedure must be notified to both the reporter and the publisher.

-- Are posts automatically deleted once a report is received?

▲ No.

A post is not automatically deleted just because a report is received; the platform reviews it according to its own policies and decides whether to take action.

-- Can different platforms make different decisions?

▲ Yes, it is possible.

Platforms judge posts according to their own established operating policies.

Even for the same post, different actions may be taken depending on each platform's policies or criteria for judgment.

The government plans to increase operational transparency by disclosing processing results, implementing objection procedures, and establishing a transparency report system.

-- Can the government designate posts it dislikes as "fake news" and delete them?

▲ The government explains that it does not have the authority to directly judge or delete posts.

However, some raise concerns that a "chilling effect" could occur, where platforms preemptively delete posts out of concern over regulatory burdens.

-- Is the government also looking into KakaoTalk or DMs (direct messages)?

▲ No.

The government explains that private, one-on-one conversations or messenger chats, such as those on KakaoTalk, are not subject to this system.

The revised law targets publicly distributed online information and the reporting and processing systems of platforms, and does not grant the government the authority to monitor or view private conversations.

-- Does a government-designated fact-checking organization make the final determination on misinformation?

▲ No.

Private fact-checking organizations that have agreements with platforms can verify facts and provide results, but platforms are not required to follow them.

Platforms can make independent decisions based on their own operating policies, and the system is not structured so that a specific organization legally acts as an "arbiter of truth."

The government-supported "Transparency Center" assists with database construction, research, and education, but does not perform direct fact-checking.

However, how to secure the neutrality and credibility of private fact-checking organizations remains an ongoing topic of discussion.

-- Is there a possibility that misinformation reporting could be abused?

▲ Some raise concerns that "report bombing"—where specific posts are targeted with concentrated reports during political or ideological conflicts—could occur.

Accordingly, critics point out that it is important for platforms to properly operate independent reviews and objection procedures based on their own operating policies, rather than making decisions solely based on the number of reports.

-- Some argue that the law targets YouTubers or social media accounts critical of the administration?

▲ The government explains that the system is not designed to regulate specific political inclinations or opinions, but rather to strengthen accountability for repeatedly distributing misinformation and disinformation to generate profit.

Fines or punitive damages apply when an information publisher of a certain scale or larger is found liable for distributing illegal or manipulated false information through a court decision.

The government maintains that political criticism or expressions of opinion themselves are not subject to regulation.

-- What kind of relief can I get if I am harmed by misinformation?

▲ You can file a claim for damages.

For example, if a so-called "cyber wrecker" (malicious online content creator) with 100,000 or more subscribers spreads false information about a celebrity, causing harm such as a suspension of activities, the victim can claim damages and, if certain requirements are met, punitive damages of up to five times the actual loss.

-- To whom do punitive damages apply?

▲ The targets are publishers of a certain scale or larger who distribute information as a business.

This applies to information publishers who have caused harm by distributing misinformation or disinformation, have posted three or more times in the preceding three months to earn advertising or sponsorship revenue, and have 100,000 or more subscribers or an average monthly view count of 100,000 or more.

The court can order compensation of up to five times the maximum amount of damages.

-- Can YouTubers or media outlets also be subject to this?

▲ Yes, it is possible.

Not only YouTubers but also articles on media outlets' websites or posts on their social media channels can be subject to the law if they meet the requirements.

However, reporting for public interest purposes or information concerning the public interest may be excluded from the application of punitive damages.

-- When is a fine of up to 1 billion won imposed?

▲ This applies when content that has been finalized by a court as illegal or manipulated false information is repeatedly distributed.

If an information publisher earning revenue from advertising or other sources has posted three or more times in the preceding three months and redistributes false information finalized by a court ruling two or more times, they can be subject to a fine of up to 1 billion won.

-- Is hate speech also subject to regulation?

▲ While misinformation and disinformation refer to cases where content that differs from the facts is manipulated and distributed, hate speech refers to expressions that incite discrimination, exclusion, or violence against a specific individual or group.

The revised law includes hate speech in the category of illegal information.

However, the specific application may vary depending on the judgment of individual cases.

The government explains that political criticism or satire will not be punished as hate speech.

It maintains that judgments are made only in cases where discrimination or violence against a specific group is incited, significantly damaging human dignity, and that simple criticism or satire itself is not subject to regulation.

-- What if I do not agree with the platform's action?

▲ The reporter or the publisher can file an objection within six months.

If they disagree with the result, they can apply for mediation to the dispute mediation division of the Korea Media and Communications Standards Commission (KMCSC) and, ultimately, seek a court decision.

-- Ultimately, what is the core of the new system?

▲ The government explains that rather than a system where the state directly deliberates on and deletes misinformation, it is a system that strengthens platforms' self-regulation and damage relief measures.

Going forward, how transparently the platforms' judgment criteria and objection procedures are operated, and whether a balance can be maintained between curbing misinformation and protecting freedom of expression, are considered key to the successful settlement of the system.