South Korea
Country specific information on content we restricted based on local law.Changelog
Jan 2025 - Jun 2025 Update
Jul 2024 - Dec 2024 Update
Jan 2024 - Jun 2024 Update
Jul 2023 - Dec 2023 Update
Jul 2022 - Jun 2023 Update
Jan - Jun 2022 Update
Jul - Dec 2021 Update
Jan - Jun 2021 Update
Jul - Dec 2020 Update
Jan - Jun 2020 Update
Jul - Dec 2019 Update
Jan - Jun 2019 Update
Jul - Dec 2018 Update
Jan - Jun 2018 Update
Jul - Dec 2017 Update
Jan - Jun 2017 Update
Jul - Dec 2016 Update
Jan - Jun 2016 Update
Jul - Dec 2015 Update
Jan - Jun 2015 Update
- We restricted access in South Korea to over 83,000 items reported by the Korea Communications Standards Commission for regulated goods and alleged fraudulent financial services under the Network Act.
- We restricted access to over 22,000 items in South Korea reported by the National Election Commission (NEC) for alleged violations of electoral law.
- We restricted access to 63 items reported by the Korea Internet & Security Agency (KISA) for alleged violations of personal data protection laws.
- We restricted access to 11 items reported by the Game Rating & Administration Committee (GRAC) for violations of gaming and gambling regulations.
- The remaining items were restricted under the Telecommunications Business Act for representing illegally filmed sexual content and for alleged violations of other local laws. A majority of the content restrictions under the Telecommunications Business Act were instances where we were obligated to automatically restrict content, at scale and in country, if the items matched the unique digital fingerprints reported to us by the Korea Communications Standards Commission, as per local law requirements.
- We restricted access to 73 items on Threads for alleged violations of local laws outlined above.
- For more details about the content we restricted under the Telecommunications Business Act, please see our annual Korea Transparency Report.
- This report includes information where in limited countries we were obligated to automatically restrict content, at scale and in country, based on local law requirements, which is reflected in the comparatively higher volumes of content restrictions. Click here for more.
- We restricted access to over 22,000 items in South Korea reported by the National Election Commission (NEC) for alleged violations of electoral law.
- We restricted access to 63 items reported by the Korea Internet & Security Agency (KISA) for alleged violations of personal data protection laws.
- We restricted access to 11 items reported by the Game Rating & Administration Committee (GRAC) for violations of gaming and gambling regulations.
- The remaining items were restricted under the Telecommunications Business Act for representing illegally filmed sexual content and for alleged violations of other local laws. A majority of the content restrictions under the Telecommunications Business Act were instances where we were obligated to automatically restrict content, at scale and in country, if the items matched the unique digital fingerprints reported to us by the Korea Communications Standards Commission, as per local law requirements.
- We restricted access to 73 items on Threads for alleged violations of local laws outlined above.
- For more details about the content we restricted under the Telecommunications Business Act, please see our annual Korea Transparency Report.
- This report includes information where in limited countries we were obligated to automatically restrict content, at scale and in country, based on local law requirements, which is reflected in the comparatively higher volumes of content restrictions. Click here for more.
About automatic restrictions at scale
Does Meta proactively search for and restrict content for going against local laws?
Does Meta proactively search for and restrict content for going against local laws?
We design our Community Standards to address online harms, which often overlap with what may be locally illegal. In cases where unlawful content does not also violate our policies, we carefully assess the legal obligation and we conduct a human rights due diligence assessment before taking action.
By default, we do not automatically restrict organic content at scale within a country for going against its local laws in line with our commitments as a Global Network Initiative (GNI) member. While uncommon, occasionally specific legal demands or a country's laws may obligate us to automatically restrict access to certain types of organic content at scale within a particular jurisdiction. Our approach in such situations is guided by our commitments as a member of GNI and our Corporate Human Rights Policy. If we are compelled to take such an action, we endeavor to deploy the following additional mitigation measures to limit its negative impact on people's voice.
- Interpret our legal obligations precisely to avoid being over-broad in our enforcement.
- Conduct tests and audits to uphold accuracy and consistency in enforcement.
- Assess at regular intervals if the automatic restrictions at scale are still required.
- Notify impacted users.
- Reflect the restrictions in the Content Restrictions report.