Kimmy Oh, a researcher at Open Net Korea, delivered the closing remarks at the “School on Platform Governance,” co-hosted by Open Net and APC. Here’s the remark.

Forcing vs. Incentivizing Content Moderation

What is the best way to moderate harmful content online?
Should platforms be forced to do it? Or should they be incentivized?
Europe and the U.S. have largely chosen the latter path, as seen in the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

First, only states have the power to force platforms—and once we rely on state power, we open the door to its abuse. That power can be used not only to curb harmful content, but also to silence dissent and suppress legitimate expression.
Second, legal enforcement is limited in scope. The law can only address illegal content. But not all harmful content is illegal—think of misinformation, hate speech that falls just short of legal thresholds, or algorithmic amplification of divisive narratives.
Third, when states start forcing content moderation, they often introduce adjacent laws to tighten their grip—like data localization and data retention laws, which expand surveillance and compromise users’ privacy.
Fourth, heavy-handed regulation raises compliance costs, which disproportionately burden small and midsize platforms. The result? Further entrenchment of Big Tech monopolies.

So, what’s the upside of incentivizing platforms instead?
The opposite of the above.
We avoid overreach and censorship by the state. Platforms gain flexibility to act on a wider range of harmful—but lawful—content. Governments are less likely to layer on surveillance-heavy requirements. And smaller platforms stand a better chance of surviving and thriving.

How do we incentivize them?
By offering liability exemptions if they take responsible, vigorous action—like notice-and-takedown systems. That was the idea behind the DMCA, which has, at least in some ways, successfully incentivized copyright moderation for past few decades.

The True Vision of the Internet

I started this talk with the goal of moderating online harms? But that is not the only goal we should be concerned about. What is the true vision of the internet? Internet gives voices and opportunities to powerless individuals. The reason we are worried about internet now is because there is no diversity of platforms that marginalized groups and vulnerable populations feel safe at. We are talking about the platform accountability but how about the state responsibility? The state also has obligation to realize the true vision of the internet, by staying away from censorship and by limiting platform monopoly. This is why Europe came up with DSA, which is still a liability-exempting law, and DMA, which is an anti-monopoly law. If an Asian state is so poor that it cannot make everyone safe and well fed, the state has an obligation to at least protect the internet through which powerless individuals can connect with one another to build democracy and economy. Which Asian state does that? This is not the time to give more power to the states in Asia. This is the time to push back against state control over the internet.

Reflections and Shared Struggles

These are thoughts I’ve continued to develop throughout my work with Open Net.
But what made this particular event especially meaningful was the opportunity to connect with people from such diverse national contexts. Through conversations grounded in each of our local realities, we were able to better understand both our common struggles and our distinct differences—and even begin imagining how we might support one another in our respective efforts.

Korean version text