Abstract
The negative impact of social media has prompted democracies to examine regulatory approaches to social media. Given that debates over media regulation often spark concerns about potential infringements on free speech, this study focuses on political speech on social media, as it plays a crucial role in democratic accountability, reflecting the media’s function, tasked with holding those in power accountable. In this regard, I argue that an independent body, free from the influence of both the state and the industry, can better protect freedom of political speech. Largely missing from the scholarly literature studying social media have been case studies sensitive to analyzing institutional developments in particular contexts from a historical perspective. By adopting historical institutionalism as an analytical tool, this study identifies institutional layering and conversion in South Korea’s regulation of online content from 1992 to 2021. It raises critical questions about whether direct government regulation of political speech on social media is always desirable, especially regarding defamation and disinformation. The study shows that direct government regulation can have negative effects on political speech. While industry self-regulation can mitigate some of these effects, it remains inherently limited due to its ties to industry interests. The dissertation concludes that a more balanced approach, involving an independent third-party body, could better protect political speech on social media.