[2026 KrIGF] Hate Speech on Everytime and the Dilemma of Small and Medium Platform Regulation

Date & Time: Thursday, July 2, 2026, 13:40–15:00
Venue: Franciscan Education Center
Speaker: Suji Kang (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies / EG@IG)
Panelists: Doran (Platform Team Lead, Parti), Youngkyu Kim (Director, Korea Internet Corporations Association), Byoung-il Oh (Representative, Digital Justice Network)

Essential Digital Infrastructure for College Students: Everytime is an unrivaled university student community with over 7 million cumulative registered users and more than 3 million Monthly Active Users (MAU). It has become an indispensable platform for university life, used for sharing course information, building class schedules, and staying informed about campus news.
Side Effects of Closed Authentication and Anonymity: While university verification maximizes user convenience, combining it with complete anonymity operates as a mechanism that amplifies hate speech and discriminatory expression.
Hierarchy-Building and Exclusivity: Severe issues exist regarding social stratification, self-display, and public shaming based on school prestige, academic major, grades, entrance exam results, and campus status (main vs. branch campus).

Echo Chamber Effect: The lack of approval procedures when creating new message boards allows extreme viewpoints to amplify and reinforce themselves, creating blind spots where hate speech becomes internalized.
Paradox of the Majority-Rule Reporting System: Because posts are automatically deleted without human review once a threshold of user reports is reached, the system is frequently weaponized as a censorship tool where majority groups mass-report and delete legitimate or rational statements by minority voices.
Lack of Follow-Up and Transparency: Temporary suspensions (minimum 3 days) are largely ineffective at preventing repeat violations, feedback regarding report outcomes is rarely provided, and malicious interference by non-students using purchased accounts remains a persistent issue.

Civil Society / Democratic Platform Case Study (Parti):
- The social cooperative 'Parti' utilizes a transparent moderation approach grounded in a clear Code of Conduct, human moderation, and direct email notifications regarding enforcement decisions.
- However, they highlighted operational hurdles, including establishing precise definitions for hate speech, the physical limits of fact-checking, and responding swiftly to newly emerging hate terminology.
Industry Perspective (Korea Internet Corporations Association):
- Shifting legal liability and content determination entirely onto platforms creates risk-averse over-moderation, which threatens to chill legitimate freedom of expression.
- Uniform monitoring mandates impose heavy compliance costs that disproportionately favor big tech corporations while suffocating the ecosystem for small and medium platforms.
Experts & European Union Case (Digital Justice Network):
- Co-regulation models like the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA)—which focus on enforcement transparency (providing specific grounds for removal, appeal mechanisms, and independent dispute resolution)—were proposed as alternatives to unilateral censorship or pre-filtering.
- Real-name registration mandates and mandatory automated filtering carry high risks of false positives and freedom of speech violations, making them ineffective solutions.

The issue of hate speech on Everytime cannot be resolved solely through top-down government mandates or real-name registration.
Establishing a multi-stakeholder governance framework is essential—bringing together governments (establishing clear legal procedures), platforms (improving algorithms and operational transparency), universities (digital citizenship education), and civil society/users (co-creating and monitoring community standards).