![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
anti-tortoise.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
omonatheydidWhile governments around the world try to make sense of the internet and wonder how to curb some of its darker incarnations, all eyes should now be on South Korea, which is one of the first democracies planning to use the law to hold the internet to account.
Many believe that the government's attempt to impose rules on internet users will fail. What it is seeking to do is bring websites in line with traditional media: to make them accountable, subject to laws of libel and so forth.
This is a risky strategy for Seoul: if it fails, the government will face the kind of online rebellion that nearly ended the ruling government's tenure only a few months ago.
South Korea is possibly the most wired nation on Earth: 97% of South Korean households have high-speed broadband access. In the UK, by comparison, 35% of homes have no access to the web at all.
Bad manners
Some observers say this growth in internet access has brought out the worst in South Koreans.
"Internet behaviour in South Korea is somewhat of a low culture. I'm often disgusted or even offended by the manners on the net," says Dr Youngmi Kim, a professor of sociology and politics at the University of Edinburgh whose research is focusing on issues of governability in Korea, Taiwan and Japan. She is against any outright censorship, but would like to see some sort of campaign encouraging better web manners.
The South Korean government is ahead of her. Along with laws controlling internet postings, which are due to be passed in November, Seoul also plans to introduce internet etiquette and ethics lessons in schools this year for children aged seven and older.
The question is, can you police the internet? British MPs seem to think so. Members of the Commons select committee for culture, media and sport, which has made the case for centralising controls, say they want "a tighter form of self-regulation, under which the industry would speedily establish a self-regulatory body".
South Korea is going much further. Not only will all sites that publish news be liable to the same restrictions as newspapers, TV and radio, they will be answerable to a government regulatory body - the Korean Communications Standards Commission.
The rules extend beyond websites to individuals. All forum and chatroom users will be required to make verifiable real-name registrations, while internet companies will have to make their search algorithms public to improve "transparency". Most controversial of all, the commission will be given powers to suspend the publication of articles accused of being fraudulent or slanderous, for a minimum of 30 days. During this period the commission will then decide if an article that has been been temporarily deleted or flagged should be removed permanently.
However, Seoul's previous experience with such censorship suggest that unless the government hires thousands more people to staff the commission, which is already behind in processing some 2,000 internet-related objections, just addressing the initial complaints will be unworkable, untenable and unenforceable.
Professor Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of Harvard's Berkman Centre for Internet & Society, says other aspects of the new laws are unworkable. "There are genuine worries about misinformation that can be spread online, but a regime of requiring real-name registrations for all message boards and chatooms would represent a sweeping law-enforcement effort - and one that could not be readily accomplished without filtering out overseas sites that decline to implement the requirement."
Jean K Min of OhmyNews International, South Korea's leading citizen-
journalist-based portal, says that the new controls smack of Big Brother. "The approval rating of president Lee fell below 20% after the fiasco of US beef imports and poor handling of other sensitive diplomatic issues. Many here suspect the ruling party lawmakers and government officials are actually trying to save the deeply unpopular government by intimidating netizens from posting free online opinions with a variety of new legislation and legal threats."
'Excessive emotional behaviour'
Myung-bak Lee, South Korea's president, defends the proposed measures as checks against "a society rampant with excessive emotional behaviour, disorderliness and rudeness". In a recent speech, he said: "We have to guard against 'infodemics,' a phenomenon in which inaccurate, false information is disseminated; prompting social unrest that spreads like an epidemic."
That speech followed internet-orchestrated protests in August that spilled over into candlelit rallies and vigils in protest at Seoul's decision to restart beef imports from the US. Composed mostly of the young, the protests emptied schools and colleges and brought cities to a standstill; many ended in violence.
The Seoul government blamed the disruption on rumours and lies spread by internet users. It went on to accuse internet service providers of failing to police the content they host and of providing a platform for hate, libellous claims and cyber-bullying.
Providers have heeded the warnings. Korea's biggest portal, Naver, says it will drop all its news output while its rival, Daum, has offered an olive branch to old media. Daum says it will share revenue from its banner advertisements on news stories with newspapers, TV and other media outlets providing the articles.
There is an irony in the fact that South Korea, with its focus on giving its citizens access to the high-speed internet, is now seeking to curb how its people use the internet. But will it stick?
Source
Many believe that the government's attempt to impose rules on internet users will fail. What it is seeking to do is bring websites in line with traditional media: to make them accountable, subject to laws of libel and so forth.
This is a risky strategy for Seoul: if it fails, the government will face the kind of online rebellion that nearly ended the ruling government's tenure only a few months ago.
South Korea is possibly the most wired nation on Earth: 97% of South Korean households have high-speed broadband access. In the UK, by comparison, 35% of homes have no access to the web at all.
Bad manners
Some observers say this growth in internet access has brought out the worst in South Koreans.
"Internet behaviour in South Korea is somewhat of a low culture. I'm often disgusted or even offended by the manners on the net," says Dr Youngmi Kim, a professor of sociology and politics at the University of Edinburgh whose research is focusing on issues of governability in Korea, Taiwan and Japan. She is against any outright censorship, but would like to see some sort of campaign encouraging better web manners.
The South Korean government is ahead of her. Along with laws controlling internet postings, which are due to be passed in November, Seoul also plans to introduce internet etiquette and ethics lessons in schools this year for children aged seven and older.
The question is, can you police the internet? British MPs seem to think so. Members of the Commons select committee for culture, media and sport, which has made the case for centralising controls, say they want "a tighter form of self-regulation, under which the industry would speedily establish a self-regulatory body".
South Korea is going much further. Not only will all sites that publish news be liable to the same restrictions as newspapers, TV and radio, they will be answerable to a government regulatory body - the Korean Communications Standards Commission.
The rules extend beyond websites to individuals. All forum and chatroom users will be required to make verifiable real-name registrations, while internet companies will have to make their search algorithms public to improve "transparency". Most controversial of all, the commission will be given powers to suspend the publication of articles accused of being fraudulent or slanderous, for a minimum of 30 days. During this period the commission will then decide if an article that has been been temporarily deleted or flagged should be removed permanently.
However, Seoul's previous experience with such censorship suggest that unless the government hires thousands more people to staff the commission, which is already behind in processing some 2,000 internet-related objections, just addressing the initial complaints will be unworkable, untenable and unenforceable.
Professor Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of Harvard's Berkman Centre for Internet & Society, says other aspects of the new laws are unworkable. "There are genuine worries about misinformation that can be spread online, but a regime of requiring real-name registrations for all message boards and chatooms would represent a sweeping law-enforcement effort - and one that could not be readily accomplished without filtering out overseas sites that decline to implement the requirement."
Jean K Min of OhmyNews International, South Korea's leading citizen-
journalist-based portal, says that the new controls smack of Big Brother. "The approval rating of president Lee fell below 20% after the fiasco of US beef imports and poor handling of other sensitive diplomatic issues. Many here suspect the ruling party lawmakers and government officials are actually trying to save the deeply unpopular government by intimidating netizens from posting free online opinions with a variety of new legislation and legal threats."
'Excessive emotional behaviour'
Myung-bak Lee, South Korea's president, defends the proposed measures as checks against "a society rampant with excessive emotional behaviour, disorderliness and rudeness". In a recent speech, he said: "We have to guard against 'infodemics,' a phenomenon in which inaccurate, false information is disseminated; prompting social unrest that spreads like an epidemic."
That speech followed internet-orchestrated protests in August that spilled over into candlelit rallies and vigils in protest at Seoul's decision to restart beef imports from the US. Composed mostly of the young, the protests emptied schools and colleges and brought cities to a standstill; many ended in violence.
The Seoul government blamed the disruption on rumours and lies spread by internet users. It went on to accuse internet service providers of failing to police the content they host and of providing a platform for hate, libellous claims and cyber-bullying.
Providers have heeded the warnings. Korea's biggest portal, Naver, says it will drop all its news output while its rival, Daum, has offered an olive branch to old media. Daum says it will share revenue from its banner advertisements on news stories with newspapers, TV and other media outlets providing the articles.
There is an irony in the fact that South Korea, with its focus on giving its citizens access to the high-speed internet, is now seeking to curb how its people use the internet. But will it stick?
Source
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:02 pm (UTC)I hated those "internet etiquette" classes in school; it's like, no one even uses them lol.
On topic; lol at this article.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 12:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 12:01 am (UTC)Whatever, it was a good excuse to go to other sites when the teacher wasn't looking. XD
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:11 pm (UTC)I HOPE YOU FAIL!!
That said, I have to agree with the article tho, they made some good points on etiquette. But then again, under anonyminity and stuff, srsly nobody gives a damn.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:13 pm (UTC)Obviously this entire thing is going to fail. They are being too overzealous about policing every little aspect of the internet.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:16 pm (UTC)you have a point, sir
but censorship is not fun
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:18 pm (UTC)what are they doing?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:56 pm (UTC)It's, it's... unthinkable!
They must, idk, have lives or something.. \o_O/ *Shudders*
no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 12:25 am (UTC)its kind of sad
but i'm glad i was born towards the end of the 20th century because i'm not sure how i would survive
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 01:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 01:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:20 pm (UTC)I seriously think S. Korean teenagers would be a lot less aggressive and stressed out if they just backed away from the internet once and a while. Spending such a huge chunk of their lives acting rude and hateful (and without any consequences!) has got to have some impact on their behavior outside of the net. :/
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:27 pm (UTC)But Korean government.
It's the internets.
You can't really govern the internets. I'm sorry. And making another committee for it isn't going to help. But I can agree with internet etiquette. I hated that class though.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 12:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 12:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 12:46 am (UTC)I'm not saying it's an entirely bad idea, I'll just laugh when it fails. :/
.. On the other hand if more people paid attention to 'internet etiquette' it might cure my fear of forums.
I say 'forums' but I'm thinking 'Soompi'.Oh wait no hahaha the thought of youtube comments embracing internet etiquette was too much. XDno subject
Date: 2009-07-26 01:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 02:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 02:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 02:23 am (UTC)netizens always find a way to fuck with each other.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 02:29 am (UTC)or North Korea, for that matter.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 02:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:11 am (UTC)If people are so rude on the internets it's because their RL sucks and they need some kind of outlet to bitch about it. There's more important things to worry about, like, making sure their teenagers aren't killing themselves because they get no time to do anything else but study :/
no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 03:35 am (UTC)This feels very suspicious to me. Is anyone getting a weird 1984 deja vu feel? And Asian governments are known to be really autocratic, too. >_>; Aish. Though I do agree the viciousness of the netizens need to tone down.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 05:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 10:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-27 02:23 am (UTC)I smell failure, SK