Ahead of revised online content law, conspiracy theories run wild
False claims and confusion have spread rapidly ahead of the act's July 7 enactment as experts warn that its vague provisions could chill free expression.
The amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection is passed at the National Assembly on Dec. 24, 2025.LIM HYUN DONG
A wave of conspiracy theories that the government will censor free speech spread across online communities ahead of Tuesday's implementation of the revised online content law.
An analysis of 10,057 posts mentioning the so-called July 7 act — amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection — on online communities DC Inside, FM Korea and Ruliweb found that 590 posts, or 5.8 percent, contained false conspiracy claims about the law. The amendment is nicknamed the July 7 act after its effective date, and was pushed through by the ruling Democratic Party.
JoongAng Ilbo used the AI model Claude to scrape and analyze posts from the three largest online communities by monthly active users. The dataset included posts published between Dec. 24 last year, when the revised law passed the National Assembly, and Thursday.
The amendment introduces punitive damages for those who distributes false or manipulated information online intentionally or for unjust financial gains. It also requires online communities with more than 1 million daily users to remove or block flagged content and prevent its further distribution.
The most common conspiracy theory, accounting for 206 posts, or 35 percent, claimed that the law was influenced by the Chinese Communist Party.
“There is an identical law in China,” one internet user wrote. “The ruling party, Chinese nationals and ethnic Chinese will not be punished from under the law.”
An online post uploaded on June 12 claims that the amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection is influenced by the Chinese Communist Party.SCREEN CAPTURE
Another 109 posts, or 18 percent, claimed that the United States would intervene in response to the law.
One user wrote that “Trump will bring an aircraft carrier to the Han River.”
“The Iran war ended and the revised act passed the National Assembly. The United States has no choice but to intervene now,” wrote another user.
A total of 95 posts, or 16 percent, falsely claimed that the law was intended to cover up election fraud.
“The people who came to power through election fraud made this law,” a different user wrote. “The act aims to arrest ordinary citizens who criticize [election fraud.] Even after the law takes effect, it is important to keep looking for evidence of election fraud.”
Baseless claims that the government revised the law to raise stock prices were also found.
“Implementation of the act will cover up negative economic news on [July] 7 so someone will profit from stocks,” one user wrote.
Separate from the conspiracy theories, confusion has continued over what the revised law actually regulates. Common misconceptions include claims that the government will use AI to monitor every online post or messages sent through KakaoTalk.
The Korea Media and Communications Commission released a statement on Monday denying such claims, clarifying that the government doesn't directly review or determine whether information circulated online violates the act.
“Whether information constitutes false or manipulated content is determined by private platform operators under their own policies,” an official at the commission said. “Private messages that are not publicly available to the public are outside the scope of the act.”
People Power Party lawmakers submit a proposal to amend the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection on Jan. 15, which would roll back changes made to the act at the end of 2025.YONHAP
Experts say the confusion has persisted partly because key legal concepts remain vague, despite the government's explanations. Internet users may struggle to determine whether their own posts fall under the law because it is unclear how broadly “false and manipulated information” is defined.
“The legal concepts of false and manipulated information, unjust financial gains and the public interest remain unclear,” said Lee Seong-yeob, a professor at Korea University's Graduate School of Management of Technology.
“In 2010, the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional a provision of the Framework Act on Telecommunications that punished people for spreading false communications 'with the intent of harming the public interest,' finding that the concepts of 'public interest' and 'false information' violated the constitutional principle of legal clarity.”
Some expressed concern that only those with the financial resources and legal expertise to pursue lengthy court battles will be able to benefit from the revised law. If government agencies or large corporations repeatedly file lawsuits, individuals may become reluctant to exercise their freedom of expression.
“There is a significant risk that those with political or financial power will abuse the law by repeatedly filing strategic lawsuits to silence criticism,” Professor Lee said. “There is concern that freedom of expression could be excessively restricted. Rather than directly regulating false claims, it would be more reasonable to strengthen the media's own self-regulatory efforts.”
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
