YouTube's rise in politics calls for transparency-based regulation

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 Y...