The problem is that using an AI censorship tool requires purchasing a solution from a specific vendor. And the deadline is effectively less than a month. There’s nothing particularly unusual about this—South Korea especially has many IT zombie companies that sustain themselves through government contracts. In practice, there’s a local CMS structure in place, and Korean programmers, who are generally weak in English, have to rely on that local CMS, which makes them weak in programming as well. (This is why, despite being a country with a high proportion of highly educated people, South Korea has relatively few prominent programmers.)
South Korea was the first country in the world to implement an internet censorship law. There is a historical record of censorship, regardless of which administration—left or right—was in power.
That said, it’s a complicated issue because these censorship systems also tend to create state IT contracts and job opportunities.
To make things more concrete: most local bulletin board systems and forum platforms are heavily tied to a specific commercial CMS. This is not a coincidence — government-affiliated projects often mandate that CMS, and developers here, lacking both English proficiency and exposure to global open-source alternatives, end up locked into its ecosystem. As a result, even basic AI censorship features become dependent on that vendor’s proprietary modules. When a tight deadline (less than a month) forces a purchase, there’s no room to explore better, cheaper, or more transparent options. The structure itself perpetuates vendor lock-in, weak technical capacity, and a cycle of superficial compliance rather than genuine innovation.
This sounds to me like a repeat of what happened with SEED[1]. The recipe is the same: a real problem followed by a hasty (and probably inferior) NIH solution, a single implementation forced down everybody's throats followed by years of technological stagnation.
Hopefully this mandate wouldn't end up being as far reaching as the SEED mandate did (forcing South Korean web to run on older Internet Explorer versions with custom insecure ActiveX controls for everything).
My country is always like this. I think it's a problem unique to East Asian countries—following orders obediently. I read the link you shared, and it seems similar.
That's interesting. I didn't know any other country in East Asia that showed this level of restrictive policy that sets up a cascade of problematic tooling and technologies.
Japanese Internet was pretty bad in the 2010s, but this was all self-inflicted done by the private sector. The government had very little do with it. And even then, ActiveX controls were very rare. My main pain point with online banking was ugly sites, back buttons that don't work and passwords limited to 8 or 12 characters "for security reasons". But those problems are not specific to Japanese or Asian banking sites. The only Japan-specific woes I can think of are frequent maintenance windows where most banking functionality is done (mostly eliminated on my bank) and weird 2FA methods like Security Cards (just a paper card with a table of codes for challenges, also completely gone now).
It's essentially a takedown of Korean imageboards and forums where political memes, especially of the current president, is very popular.
They are fully aware that these operators will not be able to afford the hardware and sustain their public squares by requiring a ridiculous ordinance targeting them.
I see GP is downplaying this very fact that its the "norm" in Korea and I can tell you that it's not. Korea has enjoyed free expression through the internet, now posting meme of the Korean president is going to be impossible/illegal for the site operator. This is definitely not normal and the AI narrative is just a convenient excuse.
Korea's tax revenue has increased thanks to the AI boom, so the country is actively promoting AI at the national level, creating pressure that you have to use it or else, and continuously announcing projects with 'AI' attached to them. The problem is that a freelance individual like me has no way to get involved—it's almost entirely a business based on personal connections. Personally, I think if this is successfully operated in Korea down the line, it could be exported to other countries
You're right about the CMS. But unlike the Western ecosystem centered around WordPress, South Korea's public and web ecosystem is pathologically dependent on isolated local bulletin board system (BBS)-centric CMS platforms like 'GnuBoard' or 'ZeroBoard/XE.' As a result, when the government mandates censorship modules, it creates vendor lock-in, as those modules are supplied exclusively in the form of plugins for these local CMS platforms
Right. Each country has its own environment dependencies, but instead, global competitiveness weakens. But isn't the Japanese web rather more distinctive in terms of website styles? They have so many hardcore programmers over there
No traditional media talk about this as much as it should be. No one seems to care but the always-angry, chronically online. I had no high hopes for free internet in this country but it's getting worse than I've ever imagined.
They are fully aware that website operators of popular discussion forums cannot afford it. This is effectively a mass censorship/takedown of Korea's remaining corners of free speech.
Imagine if a subreddit had to shut down because they have to now purchase expensive hardware just to vet each image shared.
These forums are popular with the young who share meme images of the current president of Korea and this new ordinance would immediately put an end to that.
lobste.rs has a pretty decent system with a global invite tree, where users can provide access for other people. it comes with the benefit of creating an association graph of accounts that allows for swift moderation, and lets the userbase grow within a community of people likely to appreciate the culture.
That's pretty much the present today. Tbh I'm fine with the public internet just dying off at this point and people going back to their local smaller scale groups.
Korea is backwards in technology in every possible way.
- For the longest time, you needed a windows computer to access any sort of government or banking service, and it's still the case for most services
- Because of the reliance on crappy windows laptops, you see everyone who uses a laptop carries an external mouse around to places like coffee shops (bc their trackpads suck)
- the de-facto document format are crappy hancom formats
- watching korean news is farcical - every time they cut to public footage, literally 80% of the frame is blurred. I see no point in even watching the news.
- APIs and API documentation for stuff is sooooo poorly designed/written. Like, it's a f-ing joke.
- External map providers were iced out of hte market until this past year
- You need a phone number to sign up for literally anything.
There are so many more examples but these are just the ones off the top of my head. There is not an inch of breathing room for dynamism.
Koreas issues arent political. This is what happens in pure oligopolies. People on twitter love to fantasize about Korea being so technofuturistic but the truth is that the startup culture is terrible, there's no venture capital scene, and the big companies write all the rules
You're right. This stems from the characteristics of a small country. In fact, in Korea, Twitter (X) is looked down upon as something only crazy people use, and its image is not good.
But the overall situation you described is basically a combination of a chaebol-centered, family-run system of national governance, layered on top of large corporate oligarchy. Within that structure, the problem becomes one of survival through vendor contracts rather than aggressive investment—that's the real issue.
I personally hate this culture, which is why I'm trying to get a job in the U.S. Working 84 hours a week for three months and making less than 8 million won is exhausting.
Oh, really? That's interesting. I suppose that makes sense, since in the U.S., a single state is often larger than all of South Korea. Thanks for the good conversation. Sometimes the world is surprising in ways like this
edit: for more context, it was initially adopted because it had better support for Korean language features, but now it serves basically no purpose other than be a pain in the ass for anyone who has to deal with their proprietary, incompatible with everything file formats.
Something missing as cultural context is that deepfake, involuntary "porn", and all sorts of abuse of personal image, are a rampant and omnipresent problem in Korea. Many things are great here, but the sexual landscape when it comes to men versus women and kids, is nasty. You can't really apply a Western mindset to this without understanding just how messed up some of that stuff is. So whatever you think of the mechanism, the problem behind it is very real.
I do think a proposal that AI-filters content on small forums is a bit weird, and probably clumsy. But Korea faces a real problem and usually leans toward a bias to action and "just do it". It leads to weird stuff but also to dynamic problem solving.
The part I'm trying to preempt here is measuring this against so called "universal" values; these French Revolution/Enlightenment ideas of universal rights aren't really universal, they're one culture's logic, consistent inside its own bubble but exported like it's the default for everyone. I'll say, I do like them. But other self-consistent logics exist, and I think Korea's set is one of them. It's going to sound cliché but it leans on harmony and the group where the Western one leans on the individual. Both produce aberrations, only different ones.
For example, first time I came here I thought it's crazy to have so many speeding cameras and CCTVs everywhere. Years later I didn't so much "got used to it" but I think it's a tradeoff that mostly works and I grew to appreciate it.
Korea prefers lightweight polices (literally friendly looking) with a lot of automated, bulk enforcement, instead of sparse enforcement backed by the occasional armored truck. That's a design choice, not a slide into dystopia.
So all I'm trying to convey is, keep an open mind, and don't apply some supposed "universal" mindset blindly. Critique the mechanism all you want. Just don't do it by treating one culture's values as the yardstick everyone else gets measured by.
Fwiw I think it's a misfire. But I don't think it's a slippery-slide down dystopia. It's just Tuesday.
I don't think it's a dystopia. Hanlon's razor still applies. But I beg to differ on your classification of North Korean policies as "lightweight". Korean internet policies usually mandate a very specific technology (like SEED, or apparently this new model now) and weave a web of highly-detailed, Korea-specific regulations that end up creating a monopoly or oligopoly of objectively inferior and highly insecure software.
This is not lightweight. Even the much maligned Online Safety Act in the UK that forced age verification is a far more lightweight policy than what Korea does. It doesn't mandate a specific software or hardware, it doesn't mandate a specific cipher or protocol. Even the list of methods acceptable methods for age verification is explicitly non-exhaustive[1]. And this is the current poster-child of government overreach in the west!
My example of extremely lightweight digital policies (for most things) would be Japan. Vague requirements, non-exhaustive examples, copious exceptions ("you don't have to implement X if it's technologically cumbersome"), everything can be done either manually or in a fully automated way. Is this good? I think Japan is sometimes far too lenient (e.g. on security requirements), but objectively speaking this is lightweight. Korean digital policy is not lightweight by any definition of that word. If not sending tanks to catch every revenge porn distributor is "lightweight" for you that's fine, but which country does that? If we judge a heavyweight policy by its restrictiveness, then there are probably only a handful countries that can compete with Korea.
I wrote "lightweight polices" not policies. The police presents itself as benign looking in a public context. Enforcement of day to day offences is done mechanically by machines. A state trooper doesn't stop you on a speed check with his hand on his gun.
Yes, online policies are wild and not lightweight at all.
I often agree with you to some extent. In Korea, you can't just say there's no problem with revenge porn—that's basically the logic the Korean government uses. But the issue is that the main source of revenge porn actually comes from overseas communities that Koreans use.
Of course, Korea's largest domestic community has had issues with filtering—things like terrorism threats and rape cases have occurred there. But that's because that community (DCinside) is so large. In reality, the incidents that have truly enraged the public started on Twitter (X) and Telegram. So do the key actors behind these problems end up being subject to censorship? No, they don't.
And does censorship actually eliminate the problems you mentioned? Or does it just make things darker and worse?
I myself have a typical East Asian mindset—I believe a certain level of restriction on freedom is necessary. But to be honest, I see this as internet martial law
A little backstory to Korea's political scene: left leaning political power has come to power , similar to UK's Starmer, and have started implementing draconian surveillance laws.
There's almost no real opposition to stop these type of insane laws that violate individual freedoms. Expect more weirdness out of Korea
he is objectively left wing. People are over indexing on his controversies instead of looking at his policy platform as a whole. Also take into account that he is in a democracy the leans right on many un-impactful but hot topic issues.
Not in policy, no he definitively isn't. It's actually possible to join and have a career in political party without believing a word of what they stand for. There are examples all over the world, but Starmer is among the most blatant ones.
My best theory is that he's chum with one of UK's many spy lords - that is, upper class twats with a sinecure in the secret services - and that he's trying to destroy Labour for them (and the good of the country of course). He only failed last election because the conservative party was even more self-destructive.
The whole uk establishment including the civil service is one giant expression of fabian thought. The civil service runs itself, appointing itself and ignoring political power. Labour with Starmer just happens to a time where fabians are in control of the entire state.
I’m Korean too, but people forget that the right wing has also enforced censorship. Personally, I think the Korean right wing cries out for freedom, but in reality their ideology is rooted in the anti-communist thought of the anti-communist liberal era. I myself have somewhat negative feelings toward communism, but the so-called 'right-wing' regime in Korea is really just nostalgia for dictatorship. The current Korean administration is called 'left-wing' only because the opposition is far-right. In fact, the Korean Political History Association has long classified the 'Democratic Party'(Party name) administration as conservative. This is simply due to a poor understanding of politics[1],[2]
I don’t think this framing works nor is your attitude of "I'm korean I automatically know more than a foreigner who studied Korean history". It is true that Korean conservatives have used censorship and authoritarian language before such as Yoon’s 2024 martial-law attempt is the obvious recent example, and nobody serious should minimize that but that does not make the Democratic Party some neutral actor, or make censorship a uniquely partisan problem. The current ruling party's previous president, Moon Jae-in’s gov, passed laws specifically suppressing anti-North Korea leaflet and threatened activists against sending them into North Korea which the Constitutional Court later struck it down as an excessive restriction on free speech. That is a clear sign of suppressing free speech at home to directly appease an authoritarian country!
Same with media regulation in 2021, the same party tht is in power now pushed laws that directly supressed press freedom, prompting strong condemnation from Reporters without Borders and international human rights group. And lo behold you have laws now extend beyond simply press to free speech on the internet exactly as they had warned 5 years ago.
The trend of suppressing free speech continues under current admin where lawmakers passed another false-information bill allowing up to 5x damages against news orgs and independent journalist's YouTube channels, where there is no bipartisan oversight in arbitration and it is heavily in control by the ruling "democratic party".
The Korean Democratic Party is not Marxist, but seemingly have shown affinity for them from failed sunshine policy that directly enabled the development of nuclear weapons and human rights abuses with North Korea, pushing more state intervention/lawfare than any other party in history. Korean ideology does not map cleanly onto US/Europe labels and attempt to smearing conservatives to gatekeep the true political reality of Sout hKorea and its history is simply immature.
First, I'm a bit sorry for my somewhat sarcastic tone earlier. You're also right about some things.
That said, your research basically differs from what the Korean Political Science Association states. Regardless, both of Korea's two major political parties fundamentally like authority and censorship. Looking at their actual censorship policies, both have done quite similar things. So what difference is there? Mainly, Korea's conservative party-affiliated newspapers have more influence, so they are stronger at agenda-setting.
Judging by your tone, I think you basically understand Korea through the lens of Christian conservative issues, especially related to religion. But in reality, there are complex circumstances behind it.
First, as you said, the issue of 'fake news' is fairly complicated in Korea. Starting with the Yoon Seok-youl administration imposing heavy penalties on actual 'real news' by labeling it as fake news through the KCSC, there has been basic political pressure on algorithmic intervention by Korea's major platforms. Also, President Park Geun-hye conducted KakaoTalk surveillance and a blacklist of the cultural sector. But these insider details don't get conveyed to you as a foreigner. Why is that?
It's partly because Korea's left-leaning news media lack global competitiveness. Your perspective is mostly colored by Korean Christian conservatism. Why might that be? Probably because your news about Korea mostly comes through Korean-American Christian conservative media outlets. And Christian groups in Korea are closely connected to the far right. Why? Because religious groups can easily provide personnel to help with election campaigning, so there is a collusive relationship. Anyway, I don't think your perspective is entirely wrong, but your tone was so intense and you so harshly 'condemned' the opposing side that I became a bit sarcastic. Your perspective does make some sense.
However, I do think there is a problem with the materials available for foreigners to study this issue. That also feels like part of Korea's lack of global competitiveness
If the implication is that the left is more willing to violate freedoms, you're leaving out that the right-wing president was ousted for attempting to subvert democracy by instituting martial law for no good reason.
Sure buddy, just omit the fact that the last president tried to do a coup and is now serving a long prison sentence. It's all the fault of the left leaning guy, there was no censorship or state surveillance in Korea before that.
Traditional labels are becoming useless anyway, liberal can mean anything from libertarian free market enjoyer to radical progressive depending on who you are talking to. And I am talking about self-identified labels!
You also have many right wingers (internationally) moving towards things like industrial policy, subsidies, and a populist labor focus (coupled with anti-immigration rhetoric of course). In some cases, even nationalization is under discussion. It’s a wild time to try and label things.
My main point was there is not a single axis. Even left and right are not strictly opposites, you can have a society that decides based on some mix of authority and democracy (individual preference). They are only opposites at the extreme, if you insist that every political problem has to be addressed in the particular way.
The labels are not useless, they represent certain values and disagreements over how society should be governed. Of course, each of the values has a failure mode, but they are different. The values are:
- Right-wing, conservative, authoritarian - society should be governed by elites, conflict should be resolved by submission to authority
- Left-wing, socialist, democratic - society should be governed by equal peers, conflict should be resolved by democratic consensus
- Liberal, individualist, pro-freedom - the question of societal governance (and the arising conflict) should be avoided if possible by giving each participant their own life independent on others
Of course it is confusing because people cheat and do not always want to state their aims clearly. The values are also not opposites, but independent; they can also be applied per problem. For example, most famously, some communists were both left (they wanted a socialist society without classes) and right (they wanted the transformation under the party authority). But each pair of these has a similar conflict like that, so (aside from the communist spectrum above) you get also capitalist spectrum between right vs liberal, and anarchist spectrum between left vs liberal. In the middle of all 3, things are roughly social-democratic.
He's a twonk and Britain is essentially a police state at this point. The American Revolutionary War was fought over far less than what is going on right now.
My pet theory is a knock on history of reverberating PTS, people pander to the need for a calmed environment suitable for survivors with PTS which creates a vacuum for biggest emotions wins and other low boundaries behavior, gambling/internet addiction.
That's very reductionist, and itself a kind of right-wing (authoritarian) idea - all politicians are corrupt so there is no meaningful way to change things.
Indeed. Aside from being extraordinarily intellectually lazy, bothsidesing actually enables corruption by failing to identify it, or failing to distinguish degrees of corruption that are so severe as to be more differences in kind than differences in degree. And thus in the U.S. we get Trump and his entire cabinet, Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Federalist Society, the Kochs, money pouring into elections via Citizens United courtesy of John Roberts, and much of the rest of the GOP political apparatus ... in large part a result of people staying home or voting 3rd party because their "principles" didn't let them vote for "the lesser of two evils".
At this point, no, he's just nothing. A wet washcloth, we'd say in German. He's abandoned a whole bunch of promises and watered down the remaining ones, without really setting a direction. And he's probably out soon anyhow.
Minority Report wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual ffs.
Also, will the AI curtail artistic activity? Things it doesn't recognize? We had watchdogs on personal expression before, one of the outcomes was "degenerate art" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art]
No they didn’t, quite the opposite, they were the main customers and and certainly accelerated the spread of the technology. Of course banning the printing of specific books is another matter.
Islamic countries OTOH handle banned or strictly restricted its use. Coincidentally most progress there ceased and they were stuck in the 1500s for the next 400 years or so..
How many people are involved in ISPs, data centers, and other internet backbones? Most people are consumers rather than producers or "printing press" operators.
Actually it's perfect. How long did it take rulers to go from fighting the printing press to using it for propaganda and their own ambitions? The internet has just speed run that same course.
South Korea was the first country in the world to implement an internet censorship law. There is a historical record of censorship, regardless of which administration—left or right—was in power.
That said, it’s a complicated issue because these censorship systems also tend to create state IT contracts and job opportunities.
To make things more concrete: most local bulletin board systems and forum platforms are heavily tied to a specific commercial CMS. This is not a coincidence — government-affiliated projects often mandate that CMS, and developers here, lacking both English proficiency and exposure to global open-source alternatives, end up locked into its ecosystem. As a result, even basic AI censorship features become dependent on that vendor’s proprietary modules. When a tight deadline (less than a month) forces a purchase, there’s no room to explore better, cheaper, or more transparent options. The structure itself perpetuates vendor lock-in, weak technical capacity, and a cycle of superficial compliance rather than genuine innovation.
reply