[Suwan News = Reporter Kim Dong-ju] On May 18, the Gwangju Democratization Movement marked its 46th anniversary. Far from bowing our heads in respect for the pain and sacrifices Gwangju endured in 1980, we must firmly condemn the historical distortions perpetrated by those who continue to denigrate the civilian militia as “rioters” and defend the “Chun Doo-hwan dictatorship.” For example, the events held by Starbucks Korea to mark May 18—such as “Tank Day” and the campaign featuring the slogan “Bam! On the Desk!”—are prime examples of historical distortion and constitute secondary victimization of the victims. Upon hearing about Starbucks’ event that day, President Lee Jae-myung criticized it as the inhumane and despicable behavior of a low-class profiteer who insults the blood-soaked struggle of the Gwangju victims and denies their human rights and wounds.
"People are spouting anti-communist nonsense in this thread. Communism from who-knows-when—it's really boring."
This marked the beginning of an intriguing social experiment launched by this newspaper aimed at those who still cling to the outdated conspiracy theory of “communist interference” regarding the May 18 Democratization Movement. The response to this short, two-sentence piece—which was somewhat provocative and inflammatory—was more enthusiastic than expected. While further analysis is needed to determine whether this was due to the timing—which coincided with the Starbucks event that day—the post surpassed 2,800 views in just two days after it was published, and the comments section turned into a veritable free-for-all.
What was interesting was the imbalance in the numbers. The post received only 16 “likes,” but a whopping 142 comments. In internet slang, this phenomenon is known as “ratioed.” It means that the anger of those who rushed in out of frustration was more than nine times greater than the positive engagement the post received. To understand how Threads—once hailed as a “clean zone” or a platform for sharing heartfelt moments of daily life—has transformed into a battleground for the most extreme ideologies, this publication acted as a “guinea pig” to observe the madness firsthand.
"The '2026 One-Party Dictatorship Theory' and a Sense of Victimization… An Alternative Reality Where Common Sense Doesn't Apply"
The knee-jerk reactions of the far-right and conservative users who were the targets of the experiment were frighteningly formulaic. For them, terms like “destroy communism” or “communism” served as “trigger words” that elicited anger at the level of a spinal reflex, even before any logical reasoning took place.
The logic in the comment section strayed from causality from the very beginning. While some expressed outrage, claiming that “the current Lee Jae-myung administration is a one-party dictatorship”—referring to the Republic of Korea as it exists today under liberal democracy in 2026—a ridiculous worldview emerged; and when the May 18 Democratization Movement, a historical tragedy, was mentioned, they spewed long-standing partisan rhetoric and a victim complex, retorting, “What kind of bullshit is this? It’s as if only you are allowed to honor it, while others aren’t even allowed to come.”
For them, social media was not a space for exchanging information or communicating with others. It was more like a mission station for spreading the gospel of an “alternative reality” they had constructed for themselves—one in which they labeled any camp they did not support as the “ultimate evil” and consumed only the conspiracy theories they wanted to believe. An “intellectual vacuum” where dialogue and common sense held no sway—that was the true face of those addicted to digital tribalism.
An Annoying Cartoon Character and a Peaceful Exit… A Dampened Sense of Impact
When users found themselves unable to mount a logical rebuttal, the weapon they chose was a “messenger attack.” Claims such as “leftist nonsense” and “if you hate it so much, just defect to North Korea” predominated—arguments that committed the fallacy of ad hominem abuse by stigmatizing this reporter’s mental state or political leanings. Far from offering sound criticism based on evidence, these individuals—who rushed in solely to slander the messenger—eventually went so far as to steal the profile photos of this publication’s reporting team to create mocking and derogatory content.
However, it was not greater anger that put a stop to this wild rampage, but rather extreme “lightheartedness” and “cynicism.” In response to those who were making fun of our reporters’ faces, this publication posted a profile picture of the cartoon character “SpongeBob,” who seemed to be smirking at them in an annoyingly mocking way. Those who had been writing with the utmost seriousness—as if their very lives depended on the nation’s survival—were forced to confront a yellow sponge character mocking them with a smirk from the other side of the screen.
▲ An interactive image visualizing comments from so-called “right-wing” netizens posted on this publication’s thread using text mining techniques. (Hover your mouse over a word to see its frequency; our data analysis team is currently working to enhance the visualization.)
I didn't expect the response to this thread to be this intense.
The reaction from so-called “right-wing netizens”—which was more intense than expected—was surprising. It was a kind of social experiment conducted using somewhat harsh language, based on the premise that ideological debates are meaningless in the 21st century, and the results exceeded expectations.
What’s interesting is that, if you look at their thread profiles, they all claim to be “right-wing.” However, judged by universal and ethical standards, those who hurl blind criticism simply because someone holds different views are not right-wing but closer to the “far right.” If they had disagreed with the article published by this newspaper, they should have approached the matter with rational arguments rather than emotions.
In the end, all we could do for these people—with whom rational conversation was impossible—was to leave a message wishing them good health and a good day. Watching them—as if time had stood still for them in the Cold War era of the 20th century—I couldn’t shake the bitter impression that social media was nothing more than a trash can for them to vent their emotions.
The Economics of a Platform That Delivers Anger and Sells Conflict
The most profound question raised by this 48-hour social experiment isn’t the users’ frenzy itself. It is, “Why was this post delivered to their feeds so quickly?” The answer lies in the algorithmic system designed by the platform. Modern social media algorithms are designed to maximize user engagement time. The emotions that keep people glued to their screens the longest are not empathy or joy, but rather “anger” and “hatred.”
As early users who took the bait set by this publication began posting harsh comments, the algorithm recognized this post as a “high-performing piece of content that generates traffic.” It then “delivered” this anger to the feeds of even more conservative users. Far from healing conflict, the platform’s system itself is built on a massive “economy of rage-bait” that thrives on conflict.
This is further fueled by deliberate manipulation by a small group. In fact, while our reporters were reviewing other posts within the thread, they observed an interesting phenomenon: when they blocked one account that was criticizing the May 18 Democratization Movement, three other accounts disappeared simultaneously in a chain reaction. There were already quite a few posts among users sharing similar experiences, describing this as “manipulating public opinion by mobilizing multiple accounts.” Ultimately, the indiscriminate hatred toward the May 18th Democratization Movement that has engulfed the platform does not represent the absolute mainstream opinion of South Korean society. It is nothing more than an “artificial illusion” created by a small group that has intentionally amplified their influence using multiple accounts as fake voices.
As I stepped out of the digital battlefield, a bitter sense of reality set in, replacing the thrill of dopamine. In this swamp of anger engineered by algorithms, aren’t we pounding away at our keyboards every night as if to smash them to pieces, all aimed at ghosts that don’t even exist? In the midst of the 21st century, common sense is being hacked to pieces every night in the search bars of social media.
Kim Dong-ju, Reporter
