가짜뉴스(fake news)에서 허위조작정보(disinformation)로

Abstract

Around 2016, “fake news” had become a buzzword. This study posited that labeling a phenomenon is significant—whether it is the subject of research or regulation—because labels influence people’s thoughts and solutions regarding the phenomenon. It is impossible to study or regulate something if each person defines it differently; thus, this study explored fake news and disinformation. According to several Korean scholars’ related research since its introduction in Korea, the definition of fake news has three main components: intent to deceive, false facts, and news reporting imitation. However, fake news is now understood beyond its original meaning. In the rise of concerns about fake news, so-called fake news bills have been proposed in Korea. This study first examined what these bills intend to regulate. The study found that there were 27 bills related to fake news and disinformation, and among them, 13 bills defined what needs to be regulated. It was observed that the 20th National Assembly’s proposed fake news bills often referred to what needs to be regulated as “fake news” and emphasized the imitation of news reporting in the term’s definition. Inaddition, many of the fake news bills included the following definitions: 1) the information was created, produced, and disseminated to enhance political or economic interests; 2) the information was made to deceive the audience; and 3) the information contains false facts. The definition of what the fake news bills intend to regulate seems to reflect the “fake news” definition presented in Korean academic discussions. This study’s author argues that it is no longer necessary nor appropriate to focus on news reporting imitation as one of the core elements of what needs to be regulated. Given the changes in the media environment, courts applying the law would question what form news reporting takes as the information disorder disturbing the online information ecosystem and causing harm has appeared in various forms. The study also examined fake news’ and disinformation’s definitions abroad. Instead of “fake news,” the study found that the European Union and the United Kingdom use the term “disinformation” to call for responses about the complex and multifaceted phenomena. The key conceptual features of disinformation are content falsity and intentional manipulation. In addition, Google has issued a comprehensive report on disinformation and defined it as “deliberate efforts to deceive and mislead using the speed, scale, and technologies of the open web.” Meanwhile, Germany and France have passed new bills with precise definitions of what they regulate: illegal content according to the existing criminal statute in Germany and false information that was spread at a massive scale during the three months before France’s election and violated its authenticity. This study concluded that using the term “disinformation” is more suitable for regulatory discussions rather than “fake news,” but it is not enough to simply refer to fake news as disinformation. The study author argues that disinformation should not be understood as asingle thing that can be defined in legislation. Instead, the term “disinformation”—consisting of various expressions that cause different harms—has to be understood as a concept that reminds us that we must cope with new digital manipulations that are so easily done in unimaginable ways and quickly spreading because of technological advancements.