| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Anxiety about Democracy in the Age of Internet Society | >
> | Defending Democracy in the Age of Internet Society | | | -- By EungyungEileenChoi - 07 Oct 2019 | | | In March 2017, the Korean Supreme Court decided to impeach the then-president Ms. Park. Several events led to this impeachment. A scandal that involved Ms. Choi, a close friend of Ms. Park, misusing her relationship with the president to squeeze out money from Korean conglomerates and a marine accident during which the president kept herself locked-in in her bedroom and did not receive reports nor give any orders to rescue the drowning passengers who were mainly high-school students. Angry people poured into the streets and requested Ms. Park to resign. When Ms. Park refused to do so, the National Assembly called for impeachment and the Supreme Court approved. Because the people were holding candlelights while protesting, this impeachment is often referred to as the 'Candlelight Revolution'. There is no contestation that the internet played a significant role in the Candlelight Revolution. News and rumors relating to Ms. Park were widely disseminated through personal broadcasting media, people's anger was snowballed through interaction on social media, and instant messengers were used to organize protests. Thus, some people perceive the Candlelight Revolution as a true example of the internet promoting democracy in its most favorable way. | |
<
< | The King crab | >
> | The King Crab | | | In the aftermath of the impeachment, Mr. Moon was elected as the new president and his political party gained the majority in the Korean parliament. One year after, the current ruling party requested the police to investigate suspicious activity on the internet. They found that the number of 'likes' of articles opposing Mr. Moon and 'dislikes' of articles that favored Mr. Moon spiked in an irregular pattern. Few months later, a man, widely known by its social media ID 'Duru King', was convicted for impairing the operation of portal website servers by manipulating the numbers of 'likes' or 'dislikes' for certain articles or opinions using a hacking tool called 'King crab'. It was found that Duru King had initially operated the King crab for the benefit of Mr. Moon during his presidential election campaign for which he received some money from a very important figure in Mr. Moon's camp. After President Moon's victory, Duru King asked that a man well-acquainted with himself should be appointed as a high-rank diplomat but his request was rejected. That's when he turned his back and started to use the King crab against Mr. Moon. | |
<
< | The history of internet opinion manipulation in Korean politics dates way back. Several politicians from different political parties were convicted for hiring people to distribute disinformation through the internet to slander his opposing candidate in a primary race or election, in 2004, 2008, and 2012. A former head of the Korean intelligence agency is serving jail time for having ordered his subordinates to post mass comments or retweet comments in support of Ms. Park who was then running for president. | >
> | The history of internet manipulation in Korean politics dates way back. Several politicians from different political parties were convicted for hiring people to distribute fake information through the internet to slander his opposing candidate in a primary race or election, in 2004, 2008, and 2012, respectively. A former head of the Korean intelligence agency is serving jail time for having ordered his subordinates to post mass comments or retweet comments in support of Ms. Park who was then running for president. | | | | |
<
< | Ash conformity and Cambridge Analytica | >
> | Asch Conformity and Cambridge Analytica | | | | |
<
< | Now, some might question what real harm does it? Does the number of 'likes' or 'dislikes' really matter? Don't people have their own views and opinions? Even major news media spread incorrect or inaccurate news from time to time. More importantly, most times it is very difficult to draw a clear line between information, misinformation, and disinformation. If we were to ban any information that bears a risk of being incorrect, wouldn't that sacrifice the sacred freedom of speech? | >
> | But does the number of 'likes' or 'dislikes' or fake news really matter? To answer this question, let's turn to a classic psychological experiment by Solomon Asch that suggests those things matter. In his well-known conformity experiment, Asch observed that about one third (32%) of the participants conformed to the clearly wrong majority view although most of them claimed that they did not really believe their answers to be true. McLeod? , S. A. (2018, Dec 28). Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment. https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html Asch suggested that it was the group pressure that was making those people respond in conformity with the majority. Also, according to the experiment, people are more likely to conform if the number of majority is larger. So, the number of 'likes' or 'dislikes' on a posting regarding a political candidate might have an influence on prospective voters. Voters might refrain from expressing their views if they see the 'likes' or 'dislikes' of the majority is different, in a poll, for example. The poll results, in turn, could affect the same or other voter's decisions. False or unverified information degrading a candidate might not be believed right out but if voters are exposed to disinformation over and over again, more are likely to believe the story. As the number of believers grows, group pressure might kick in with a snowballing effect. People who don't believe the story may silence, the majority view, i.e., those who believe the story will grow even bigger, the pressure goes up, etc. (For a more detailed explanation of how public opinion manipulation on the internet works:https://www.usenix.org/node/208126.) "The Great Hack", a documentary on how Cambridge Analytica used personal information to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections shows that, if coupled with behavioral targeting, the impact can get as big as to reverse the results of the election. Even if the outcomes remain unchanged, by creating a public appearance that there might be something wrong in the procedure, electoral legitimacy is put at risk. So, if the Russians or any others wished to sabotage the upcoming 2020 presidential elections in the U.S., they could do it simply by creating chaos and distrust around the system. https://nyti.ms/2uyBXk | | | | |
<
< | Well, a classic psychological experiment by Solomon Asch suggests those things matter. In his well-known conformity experiment, Asch observed that about one third (32%) of the participants conformed to the clearly wrong majority view although most of them claimed that they did not really believe their answers to be true. McLeod? , S. A. (2018, Dec 28). Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment. https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html Asch suggested that it was the group pressure that was making those people respond in conformity with the majority. Also, according to the experiment, people are more likely to conform if the number of majority is larger. So, the number of 'likes' or 'dislikes' on a posting regarding a political candidate might have an influence on prospective voters. Voters might refrain from expressing their views if they see the 'likes' or 'dislikes' of the majority is different, in a poll, for example. The poll results, in turn, could affect the same or other voter's decision. False or unverified information degrading a candidate might not be believed right out but if voters are exposed to disinformation over and over again, more are likely to believe the story. As the number of believers grows, group pressure might kick in with a snowballing effect. People who don't believe the story may silence, the majority view, i.e., those who believe the story will grow even bigger, the pressure goes up, etc. "The Great Hack", a documentary on how Cambridge Analytica used personal information to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections and many others shows that if coupled with behavioral targeting, the impact can get as big as to reverse the results of the election. | >
> | Defending Democracy in the Age of Internet Society | | | | |
<
< | However, the impact doesn't need to be as substantial as to overturn the results of an election. Even by creating a public appearance that there might be something wrong with the election, it can create distrust and disagreement between the people. People who lost will find it harder to accept the results questioning the fairness and people who won will blame them for not respecting the results. It will polarize the people and make it harder for the community to make important decisions. According to recent news reports, U.S. cyberdefense agencies have already detected attempts where attackers used hacking and spreading disinformation to sway the 2020 American elections in a less obvious way - by creating chaos. https://nyti.ms/2uyBXk
Finding a way
I want to start with making small suggestions that hopefully will help prevent misuse of the internet for political purposes: | >
> | While it will be up to the cybersecurity forces to monitor and detect any suspicious activities on the internet, I wonder what I, as a lawyer or as one of the people, can do to help protect the integrity and legitimacy of our democratic system against malicious attempts to manipulate public opinion. | | | First, knowingly or negligently distributing news that is fake with the intention to favor a political party should be taken very seriously and punished accord ingly. Although such acts already constitute a crime in many countries, my personal view is that the punishments are often disproportionate to their negative and mostly irreparable impacts. To deter people from doing so, it is necessary to impose more severe punishment for these type of offenses. |
|