How does the South Korean public view misinformation and efforts to combat its spread? My survey work shows that, unlike in the United States where views on the issue largely split on party lines, South Koreans across parties largely share the same concerns.
Like other democracies, South Korea has struggled to respond to this challenge, which spreads most effectively online due to users’ limited attention and the increased segmentation of online communities into ideological silos. Government efforts under President Moon Jae-in led to increased criticisms that efforts undermined free speech and could target opponents. At the same time, social media companies globally have been more willing to respond to misinformation, including companies that shifted from a free speech purist position to one where accounts could be removed even without offensive or misleading posts.
South Korea already censors online materials deemed harmful, including pornography and pro-North Korean materials, while also having particularly broad defamation laws in which only provides exoneration if the statements are both true and the statement is in the public interest. Social media companies moderating content on their platforms now extends free speech and information debates previously limited to what the state should or should not do. Thus, even if social media companies are within their legal rights, a public unwilling to see efforts as valid are unlikely to take measures that limit the spread of misinformation.
I conducted an original web survey in South Korea, administered by Macromill Embrain, on March 11-16, 2022, using gender, age, and regional quota sampling. I asked 1,170respondents a series of questions related to misinformation.
First, I find that while over two-thirds of respondents (67.21%) said they had no or very little confidence in the media, that 71.91% stated that media reporting on the news without government censorship was important or very important. This would suggest a support for free speech and information, but also perhaps concern about political bias if not misinformation. However, I also find that 86.09% of respondents agreed with the statement that “severe penalties are needed for slander and defamation”.
Second, there is no clear consensus on the rights of social media companies. I asked respondents to evaluate the statement “social media companies have a right to remove posts on their platform”, finding 34.33% agreeing, 22.94% disagreeing, and 42.73% saying neither. However, unlike my 2021 survey in the US, I find little difference between supporters of the two main parties in South Korea, the liberal Democratic Party (DP) and conservative People Power Party (PPP).
Third, I find a majority (56.91%) have sought out a fact-check of social media posts, with rates among DP supporters only 4.53% higher than their PPP counterparts (61.83% vs. 57.3%). The broad support suggests perhaps a view that fact-checks are not ideologically driven or that a diversity of fact-checking outlets has provided greater confidence in the process, although admittedly I did not ask whether one was satisfied with what information they found. In contrast, in the US, I found 58.33% of Democrats but only 41.30% of Republicans sought out fact-checks.
Fourth, I find broad agreement with statements about social media, including “I like it when people correct others on social media” (71.09%), “people should respond when they see someone sharing misinformation on social media” (87.63%) and “addressing misinformation on social media is everyone’s responsibility” (80.76%). Although again DP supporters were more likely to agree, two-thirds or more of PPP supporters also agreed with each statement.
Taken as a whole, the findings would suggest a hospitable environment for combatting misinformation efforts. However, when asked a series of questions about what social media companies could do to combat misinformation, I find less consensus, with the most popular options (providing factual information directly under posts labeled as misinformation or providing factual information before showing an original post labeled as misinformation) only supported by 40.2% and 39.39% of respondents.
This tension between supporting efforts at responding to misinformation personally and using a fact-check and not supporting explicit efforts by social media companies could be due to several factors, including uncertainty that social media companies will be transparent and consistent with their policies. However, the results speak to the underlying challenge in South Korea and elsewhere. While the discourse on misinformation itself has not yet divided on party lines, the public may be hesitant of how proposed efforts will be used against people like themselves as well as the lack of a means to challenge the labeling of posts as misinformation. While transparency efforts may assuage these concerns, efforts to alter the behavior of users themselves without post removal, for example by suggesting users read an article before sharing it, may have greater influence on combating misinformation.
Funding for this survey was provided by the Institute for Humane Studies.
