[W Forum] The Dilemma of 'Search Result Transparency' in Private Platforms

Despite the new government's digital platform self-regulation policy, the positions of the government and industry regarding the transparency of search results remain sensitive. Most commercial search services on platforms are based on artificial intelligence. Through an automated content arrangement system applying AI algorithms, content is selectively exposed to users. In April, the Korea Communications Commission published a commentary on the "Basic Principles for Protecting Users of AI-Based Media Recommendation Services," emphasizing transparency, fairness, and accountability. According to this commentary, "transparency" means that information about how search results are derived must be disclosed to users. It also includes faithfully explaining the process leading to the search results upon user request. The core of adhering to transparency is the "disclosure of certain information" that serves as the basis for search results.

However, transparency is originally a principle required in the public domain and is not an ideology that can be enforced on the private sector. Transparency is realized through the government's obligation to disclose information based on the public's right to know. The public's right to know, as a fundamental human right, began to be seriously discussed and established in laws and systems in various countries after World War II. In Germany, reflecting on Nazi information control during World War II, Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law was enacted in 1949 to guarantee the right to know. In the United States, from 1950, movements opposing government media control and demanding broad disclosure of national information led to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966. In South Korea, the "Information Disclosure Act," which regulates citizens' requests for disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions and the disclosure obligations of public institutions, has been in effect since 1998. Furthermore, disclosures related to nuclear safety information, chemical substance information, designation notices of hazardous chemicals, real estate public announcements, and education information disclosures all stem from the government's information disclosure obligations based on transparency. Hundreds of laws, including the "Act on the Operation of Public Institutions," "Information Disclosure Act," "Electronic Government Act," "Political Funds Act," "Basic Administrative Regulations Act," and "Administrative Procedures Act," which include the term "transparency" in their provisions, all aim to realize transparency in the public sector. Under current laws, transparency can be understood as a goal and administrative action to be achieved through public participation along with fairness and reliability in the public sector.

On the other hand, cases where private companies must realize transparency by disclosing certain information related to their business are very exceptional. It must be directly and closely related to the safety of citizens' lives, bodies, or property. Examples include the corporate disclosure system for investor protection, the full ingredient labeling system for pharmaceuticals under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, labeling of genetically modified foods under the Food Sanitation Act, and full ingredient labeling under the Cosmetics Act. Additionally, to prevent large-scale casualties or related damages caused by negligence in investment and management of safety, laws such as the Chemical Substances Control Act require public announcement of suspension of manufacturing or import of hazardous chemicals, the Chemical Product Safety Act mandates public announcement of violations, and the Health Functional Food Act requires public announcement of administrative dispositions. These cases are also directly and closely related to the safety of citizens' lives, bodies, or property.

However, it is difficult to recognize that the mechanism determining search results is directly and closely related to the safety of citizens' lives, bodies, or property. Therefore, to justify disclosure to users or business partners who may be competitors, a high level of public interest justification is required. Moreover, search algorithms are core technologies and sources of competitiveness for platform companies. They are largely managed as trade secrets, and the Korea Communications Commission's commentary also states that the algorithms themselves are trade secrets and not subject to information disclosure. Meanwhile, major platform companies such as Naver, Kakao, Google, and Netflix already voluntarily disclose detailed information that serves as the basis for search results, which does not qualify as trade secrets. Then, it is unclear what the various platform regulation bills and government guidelines demanding transparency are asking to be disclosed. Fundamental reconsideration is needed regarding the various laws and guidelines through which the government enforces (or encourages) transparency of search results on private company platforms.

Kim Hyun-kyung, Professor, Graduate School of IT Policy, Seoul National University of Science and Technology

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.