YouTube's rise in politics calls for transparency-based regulation
2026.06.04 00:01
The author is a professor of communications at Seoul National University.
The heated local elections have come to an end. Yet more significant than the outcome itself is the fact that the infrastructure of political participation has shifted rapidly toward YouTube Shorts and large political YouTube channels.
Algorithm-driven media continuously recommend content similar to what users have already watched. Shorts are even more powerful because videos begin playing automatically. Even when televised debates contain substantive policy discussions, a verbal slip or awkward facial expression is often edited with captions and repackaged into a clip lasting only a few seconds. Stripped of context, such content spreads rapidly and can cloud voters’ judgment as much as misinformation.
The problem is that these videos have become a major campaign element through a combination of political fandoms, funding structures and platform algorithms.
Korea has relatively strict election reporting rules. Various review bodies monitor election coverage to uphold fairness, balance and political neutrality. Unfortunately, however, the regulatory framework remains focused on established media organizations and has failed to reflect YouTube’s growing influence.
Traditional media and political advertisements are subject to extensive regulation, including YouTube channels operated by news organizations and videos produced by online news outlets. Yet the influence of political YouTubers, despite their enormous reach, remains largely outside the system. The current problem cannot be solved by selectively regulating individual creators or publicly criticizing global platform executives.
YouTube has adopted certain transparency measures. During elections, its algorithm prioritizes authoritative news sources in search results. Political advertisements also require disclosure of advertiser identities and spending. Such transparency enables political parties, civic groups and citizens to monitor campaign activities.
In Korea, however, online political advertising is prohibited, leaving these measures largely inapplicable.
Instead of official paid advertising, large-scale political campaigns often take place through political YouTube channels. Super Chat donations, merchandise sales, product placements and bank account information displayed in subtitles all serve as channels for financial support. Cases occasionally emerge that raise suspicions of undisclosed relationships between politicians and channel operators. Across the political spectrum, content that blurs the line between fact and fiction is frequently repackaged into hundreds of short clips and distributed widely.
Political bias in the media is an old problem, but institutional trust differs from identity-based trust. Established media organizations are not perfect, yet they operate through editorial review, verification and oversight systems. Some degree of gatekeeping exists.
Trust in political YouTubers functions differently. It is often based on shared identity, emotional attachment and a sense of solidarity among followers. Political YouTube content typically relies on emotionally charged language centered on concepts such as good and evil, loyalty and betrayal. Communication that appeals to emotion is often more effective at motivating action than communication based on reason.
The longer-term consequences are even more troubling. Rather than strengthening citizenship through participation in elections, this media environment risks making thoughtful citizens increasingly cynical while leaving only political hooligans as active participants.
Some argue that because both sides of the political spectrum have extreme YouTube channels, balance is maintained overall. This is a mistake.
Interestingly, comment sections on highly partisan political YouTube channels are sometimes more polite than those on major portal sites. Portal sites at least bring together people with different views. Political YouTube channels, by contrast, often function as safe spaces for supporters on the same side. Their comment sections become exercises in solidarity rather than places for civic interaction.
They are not genuine public forums.
For this reason, the Public Official Election Act, created before YouTube acquired its current political influence, should be revised. In today’s media environment, regulating political communication primarily through prohibitions is nearly impossible.
The focus should instead shift to transparency. Political advertising and political donations could be allowed on a limited basis while requiring disclosure of funding sources and amounts above a certain threshold. The same principle should apply to problematic fund-raising channels such as publication commemoration events.
Powerful political YouTubers on both sides have already become influential voices for parties and politicians. Restricting their financial networks appears difficult because these relationships have evolved into communities of shared interests. The basic structure through which political influence is exchanged now rests on the media ecosystem itself. Unless that foundation is addressed properly, the prospects for a mature democracy will continue to recede.
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.
저작권 보호를 위해 본문의 일부만 표시됩니다.
원문 보기 →댓글 (0)
첫 번째 댓글을 작성해보세요!
korea election의 다른 소식
Exit polls put Jung Geun-sik on course for second term as Seoul education chief
0
Ruling DP projected to win high-stakes local elections seen as key test for president
0
Cheong Wa Dae urges NEC to take ‘responsible measures’ over ballot shortages
0
DP on track to win resounding victory in local elections, including Seoul mayor's race
0
모든 소식을 불러왔습니다