Anxiety about 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 that caused the death of many young students for which Ms. Park was accounted to be liable. 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

Another side of the story. Early this year, a man widely known by its social media ID 'Duru King' was convicted. Duru King was found guilty for impairing the operation of portal website servers by manipulating the numbers of 'likes' or 'dislikes' for certain articles or opinions posted on such websites using a hacking tool called 'King crab'. At first, Duru King operated the King crab for the benefit of the now-president Moon during his presidential election campaign and received some money from a congressman who was a very important figure in Mr. Moon's camp. After President Moon's victory, Duru King asked for more, that a man well-acquainted to himself should be appointed as consul-general. As his request was rejected he turned his back on Mr. Moon and started to use the King crab against him. Ironically enough, it was President Moon's political party that first requested the police to investigate this case because they found that the number of 'likes' of some articles or opinions opposing Mr. Moon spiked in an irregular way.

Also, during the criminal trial of Ms. Park that followed the impeachment, it turned out that much of the news, especially those that had been distributed through personal broadcasts or social media had no grounds or were fake. Although Ms. Park was found guilty for most charges filed against her, it was this type of fake news such as that Ms. Park took viagra pills and had sex with a priest when the children on the ferry were drowning, that made people storm the streets.

How do we know? Perhaps it was more the dead children and the corruption. Or the stories, which may have been more true, that she was having sex with Choi. Perhaps she was actually impeached for being a lesbian, which is how it looked from NY, rather than because there was state money paid for Ms Choi's daughter's horses, or influence behind her university admission, all of which was—to be blunt—rather familiar in the upper reaches of Korean politics and society. Heretofore, however, it was sufficient to put Presidents in jail for corruption after they left office, or to drive them to suicide. From outside Korea, the misogyny and homophobia seems more important than the particular content of the rumors.

Baby, One more time

Following the above developments in Korea, and learning about similar stories of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, I'm terrified about the consequences that the misuse of the internet can have on democracy. However, I also believe that democracy is still the best method to protect civil rights and to effectively and fairly run a country. There is an old saying in Korea that describes my feelings towards this issue, 'I hate you, but one more time'. It is used in situations where one loves another person so much that one cannot abandon the other person in spite of his/her faults and gives him/her another try. Therefore, rather than jumping to the conclusion that we should declare democracy dead because of the risks it faces in the internet society,

Who has actually been doing this? It doesn't seem necessary to write an essay countering this argument unless someone is really making it.

I want to start with making small suggestions that hopefully will help prevent misuse of the internet for political purposes:

First, knowingly or negligently distributing news that is fake with the intention to favor a political party should be taken very seriously and punished accordingly. 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.