Defending Democracy in the Age of Internet Society

-- By EungyungEileenChoi - 07 Oct 2019

Evil or Good?

It was expected that democracy would flourish even more with the invention of the internet. It is in the heart of democracy that important decisions (including who should represent the nation) are made by the majority. The majority opinion may not be always the best opinion but it is believed that by providing as much information as possible to the public, guaranteeing the freedom of expression, and facilitating vigorous discussions and debates, the majority of people would reach a consensus that is fairly reasonable and beneficial to the society in general. Also, the process of consuming information, expressing opinions, and discussing issues itself can help to bring the society members together because even the minority people feel that their opinion has been heard and considered.

In this context, the internet could only do good to democracy. Information can be distributed through the internet to practically everywhere in less than a second. Various social media and on-line bulletin boards make it possible for anyone to express opinions in public and engage in discussions or debates.

The Candlelight Revolution

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

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 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.

Asch Conformity and Cambridge Analytica

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

Defending Democracy in the Age of Internet Society

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.

It would be good, at this stage, at least to acknowledge the arguments that lie behind the US constitutional prohibition on punishing such activity at all. It's fine to disagree with that view of the relationship between free speech and democracy, but the arguments in favor of prohibiting criminalization of political speech aren't trivial and deserve to be reckoned with.

Second, manipulating public opinions should be determined as a separate type of crime and should be subject to severe punishment. In the above case, Duru King was only convicted for impairing the operation of the server of the portal website because there was no other criminal offense applicable to his acts.

On the other side is Justice Holmes' famous statement that "every idea is an incitement." Manipulating public opinion is the purpose of free speech, is it not?

Third, it should be prohibited to monitor people's online activities for purposes that have not been properly disclosed to and consented by the individual. Although websites provide notices such as cookie policies, most time the information is insufficient, too vague. Moreover, they don't provide the option to 'opt-out' because it is either you agree to the policy or you cannot use this website. Further, one cannot choose the purpose and use of one's information and must either take it or leave it all.

It's not clear what this paragraph has to do with the preceding parts of the draft. I think the best route to a stronger essay is precisely to explore further the relationship between this last call, for "data protection" law, and democracy. That might help to explain the complex relationship between problematic influence and core free speech, which is presently covered over by the punitive tone embodied in the idea of criminal regulation of political expression.