Election disinformation: MIC guideline urges demonetizing, not deletion
On October 23, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) published draft guidelines for 13 large social media companies on countering disinformation and defamation on social media during elections. The draft gives examples such as suspending monetization of posts containing disinformation and detecting AI-generated images and showing warnings, and will apply from the nationwide local elections next spring. On social media, some are calling it “government control of speech.” We checked what the original text of the draft actually says, and set out the views of those who say countermeasures should be strengthened and those worried about the impact on freedom of expression.
Verdict: are the viral claims true?
- False“The government will censor and delete social media posts”The draft states that “out of maximum consideration for freedom of expression, it does not require large platform operators to delete individual pieces of information.” Nor does it oblige operators to judge whether individual posts are disinformation.
- False“Officials will decide one by one which videos to demonetize”Suspending monetization is one of the measures “recommended” to operators. The operators decide which measures to take and which posts amount to something that “may harm the fairness of elections.” There is no mechanism for the ministry to designate individual posts.
- Misleading“Platforms will be required to suspend monetization”What the law requires is that operators take some measures to reduce the harmful effects of disinformation and other content, and publish the status of those measures once a year. Suspending monetization is one of nine examples, and the draft says it “does not make the implementation of all the measures mandatory.”
- Misleading“Platforms that do nothing face fines of up to 100M yen”There are no administrative sanctions or penalties over which measures an operator chooses. The fine of up to 100 million yen is a penalty on a corporation that violates the obligation to publish the status of its measures, receives a recommendation and then an order from the internal affairs minister, and still does not comply with the order.
- True“It targets big online platforms, not newspapers or TV”The guidelines cover large operators designated by the internal affairs minister under the Information Distribution Platform Act (13 companies, including Google, X and LY Corporation). However, spreading lies about a candidate has long been subject, no matter who does it, to the crime of publishing false information under the Public Offices Election Act.
Translated and adapted from our Japanese original. Facts are as of the original publication date unless noted.
Should national guidelines push measures such as suspending monetization to counter election disinformation on social media?
- Large operators covered
- 13 companies
- Public comment period on the draft
- Until November 24
- Revised law takes effect
- March 1, 2027
Strengthen anti-disinformation measures
Unless the system that lets people profit from false rumors is stopped, fair elections cannot be protected. Effective measures are needed before the nationwide local elections.
Concerns about freedom of expression
The line for what “harms the fairness of elections” is vague. It could chill even legitimate criticism and lead to intervention in speech.
- Both sides agree
- The state should not demand the deletion of individual posts.
- What to watch next
- The results of the public comment period, the formal decision expected within the year, and which measures each company chooses before the nationwide local elections.
Key points
- On October 23, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) published draft guidelines on measures that 13 large social media companies should take to reduce the harmful effects of disinformation and defamation on social media during elections. It is taking public comments from the 24th to November 24 and will formally decide as early as within the year.
- The revised Information Distribution Platform Act, enacted in July, requires operators to take measures to reduce harmful effects and to publish the status of those measures once a year. The draft gives concrete examples. The revised law takes effect on March 1, 2027, and will apply from the nationwide local elections in April.
- The draft recommends nine measures, including suspending monetization of posts containing disinformation, detecting AI-generated images and videos and showing warnings, giving priority display to official information from public bodies and candidates, and dealing with mass posting by bots and similar means.
- Which measures to take is left to the operators, and the draft does not ask for individual posts to be deleted. Some doubt it will be effective, while others worry that, depending on how it is applied, even legitimate posts could be chilled.
1. What is happening
Sorting out the viral claims
| Viral claim | What we confirmed |
|---|---|
| The government will censor and delete social media posts | False. The draft explicitly states that it “does not require the deletion of individual information.” |
| Officials will decide video by video which ones to demonetize | False. Operators decide which measures to take and which posts are covered. |
| Suspending monetization will become mandatory | Misleading. The obligations are to take “measures to reduce harmful effects” and to “publish the status of implementation”; suspending monetization is one example. |
| Fines of up to 100 million yen for taking no action | Misleading. The fine of up to 100 million yen is a penalty on a corporation that violates the publication obligation, receives an order and still does not comply. |
| Newspapers and TV are not covered | True. The guidelines cover 13 large operators designated by the internal affairs minister. |
The nine measures recommended in the draft
The draft lists the following nine items as “recommended mitigation measures” for operators (all are examples, and implementing every one is not mandatory).
- Stronger organization: strengthen response systems during and around the election period, for example by hiring legal experts
- Measures to prevent transmission: deleting posts or suspending accounts under the terms of service (with full consideration for freedom of expression)
- Measures on monetization: setting requirements for monetization and reviewing strictly, labeling accounts that are eligible for monetization, reviewing systems that pay according to views, and suspending monetization in cases such as posting information that may harm the fairness of elections
- Dealing with AI-generated content: features for labeling AI use, and detection by the operators themselves with warnings shown to users
- Displaying information about the poster: “verified” labels and display of the poster’s location (country or region)
- Priority display: placing official information from public bodies, candidates and parties, as well as official election bulletins, in prominent positions, and lowering the display ranking of disinformation
- Dealing with artificial amplification: detecting improper mass posting by programs or large numbers of devices, and suspending the accounts involved
- Cooperation with various parties: sharing information with election administration bodies and fact-checking organizations, and help desks for candidates and parties
- Analysis of the situation in cooperation with researchers and others
Are there penalties?
| What | Administrative sanctions and penalties |
|---|---|
| Which mitigation measures to take (the content of the measures) | None. Left to the operators’ judgment |
| Obligation to publish the status of implementation once a year | The internal affairs minister can collect reports, issue recommendations and issue orders. Violating an order carries up to one year of imprisonment or a fine of up to 1 million yen, and up to 100 million yen for a corporation |
| People who post (lies about candidates) | As before, the crime of publishing false information and others (up to four years of imprisonment or a fine of up to 1 million yen if the aim is to make a candidate lose) |
Under the revised Public Offices Election Act, people who spread online, during the campaign period, images or videos created or edited with AI are required to indicate that AI was used (minor edits and similar cases are excluded).
Timeline
| When | What happened |
|---|---|
| 2024 | In the Tokyo gubernatorial election, the “clip video” business comes to light. In the Hyogo gubernatorial election, disinformation and defamation become a social issue |
| December 2024 | Ruling and opposition parties set up an “all-party council on election campaigning” |
| July 13, 2026 | The revised Public Offices Election Act and the revised Information Distribution Platform Act are enacted (as lawmaker-sponsored bills) |
| October 9, 2026 | The all-party council submits examples of measures operators should take to MIC |
| October 23, 2026 | MIC publishes the draft guidelines |
| October 24 to November 24 | Public comment period |
| March 1, 2027 | The revised laws take effect |
| April 2027 | First applied in the nationwide local elections |
Sources (mostly in Japanese)
2. What each side says
We summarize each side's main arguments in our own words, based on the original statements and reporting.
Strengthen anti-disinformation measures
In the 2024 Tokyo gubernatorial election, a business of making money from election “clip videos” came to light, and in the Hyogo gubernatorial election the same year, disinformation and defamation against a candidate became a social issue. The spread of false and misleading information was also seen as a problem in the 2025 upper house election and in this February's lower house election, prompting the ruling and opposition parties to take action.
Communications Minister Fujii said at a press conference that by operators taking a variety of measures in line with the guidelines, “it is expected to lead to reducing the harmful effects on the fairness of elections.” He said effectiveness would increase as users and the media compare each company's efforts through the published reports on their implementation.
In a June editorial, the Asahi Shimbun called for suspending monetization of posts and banning advertising by political parties as rules for social media during elections. The Ryukyu Shimpo also wrote in an editorial that, as the attention economy spreads into elections, “we want to praise the step into suspending monetization,” and called for the law to be revised quickly.
Some say leaving it to the operators without penalties is not enough. Nikkei reported that “there are no sanctions or penalties, and effectiveness is uncertain,” and an expert comment on an Asahi Shimbun article pointed out that a system relying on users to choose services based on published reports is weak at prompting action.
Concerns about freedom of expression
Professor Shinichi Yamaguchi of International University of Japan told Nikkei he was concerned that “if its application spreads too far, even people posting legitimate criticism could lose advertising income, which could have a chilling effect.”
The Ryukyu Shimpo, while praising the suspension of monetization, wrote in its editorial that “state intervention in the name of countering disinformation must not be allowed.” The Tokyo Shimbun reported that in talks among the ruling and opposition parties there were strong concerns about excessively restricting social media use, infringing freedom of expression and causing a chilling effect, making coordination difficult.
Ryukyu Shimpo editorial (ruling and opposition parties' election social media measures; do not allow state intervention in judging falsehoods, Japanese)(Jun 4)Tokyo Shimbun (election disinformation, “penalties may come next”; freedom of expression respected but effectiveness unknown, Japanese)(Jul 14)Election consultant Takuma Ohamazaki says the draft makes sense as consideration for freedom of expression, since it works on the flow of money and how content is displayed rather than on deletion. But he points out that the structure remains in which the final judgment on whether something “may harm the fairness of elections” is made not by the state or the election administration commissions but by private companies.
The draft itself says that giving examples of what information “may harm the fairness of elections” could be taken as urging operators to act and “could also lead to excessive deletion.” It says that arbitrarily deleting content when other means are available “could lead to excessive restriction of freedom of expression,” and asks operators to avoid discriminatory treatment of particular opinions.
Questioning effectiveness
Professor Tatsuhiko Yamamoto of Keio University told Nikkei, “It is important to watch how well an enforcement system that depends on the market works.” Kyodo News explained that because the draft only gives examples of recommended measures, the actual efforts are left to the operators and effectiveness will be a challenge.
According to Ohamazaki, the revised law takes effect on March 1, only 24 days before the official announcement of the gubernatorial elections (expected on March 25). Because the public comment period runs until November 24, he says operators will have effectively only about two months to prepare their terms of service and review systems.
Reading between the lines
This section is our editors' interpretation (speculation). It is not confirmed, but the facts it is based on are sourced.
Ruling and opposition parties, MIC
Why work on “money” and “display” rather than deletion?
SpeculationIn the talks among the ruling and opposition parties, concerns about infringing freedom of expression and chilling effects were strong, and it appears they could not go as far as a system in which the state judges whether posts are true or demands their deletion. Instead, they seem to have chosen a method that does not directly touch the content of posts, stopping the system that lets people profit from views to reduce the incentive to spread content, and making official information easier to see.
Facts this is based on
- • In the talks among the ruling and opposition parties, concerns about infringing freedom of expression and chilling effects were strong, making coordination difficult.Tokyo Shimbun (election disinformation, “penalties may come next”; freedom of expression respected but effectiveness unknown, Japanese)(Jul 14)
- • The draft explicitly states that it does not ask for the deletion of individual information and does not require operators to judge whether content falls under the criteria.Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Annex 1, draft guidelines on the appropriate and effective implementation of measures to reduce harmful effects on the fairness of elections, PDF, Japanese)(Oct 23)
- • The draft reflects the points agreed by the all-party council and submitted to MIC on October 9.Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (summary of Minister Fujii's post-cabinet press conference, October 23, Japanese)(Oct 23)Yomiuri Shimbun (ruling and opposition parties request suspension of “monetization”; MIC to issue guidelines within the year, Japanese)(Oct 10)
MIC
Why does it think effectiveness can be secured without penalties?
SpeculationMIC appears to be counting on a “visibility” system in which each company publishes the status of its measures every year, and users and the media compare them to prompt action. Because the publication obligation comes with recommendations, orders and penalties, the idea is that at least “what was done” can be made public. However, the effect will depend on who scrutinizes the published content and how strictly.
Facts this is based on
- • Communications Minister Fujii explained that voluntary efforts would advance through social evaluation based on the published content and users' choice of services.Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (summary of Minister Fujii's post-cabinet press conference, October 23, Japanese)(Oct 23)
- • Violating the publication obligation makes an operator subject to recommendations and orders, and violating an order carries a fine of up to 100 million yen for a corporation.Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Annex 1, draft guidelines on the appropriate and effective implementation of measures to reduce harmful effects on the fairness of elections, PDF, Japanese)(Oct 23)Yahoo! News Expert (Takuma Ohamazaki; will election rumors “stop paying”?, Japanese)(Oct 24)
What people are saying
We searched Yahoo! Realtime Search for terms such as “MIC guideline suspend monetization” and “election social media draft guideline freedom of expression,” and checked Japanese posts on X (formerly Twitter) from October 10–24, 2026. We saw both posts welcoming the suspension of monetization and posts criticizing intervention in speech and the different treatment of newspapers and TV
Strengthen anti-disinformation measures
- “I think just stopping monetization should cut election rumors quite a lot.”
- “Freedom of expression matters, but I don't think we need to protect the freedom to make money by distorting people's judgment with false rumors.”
- “I think the measures that came out are more solid than I expected.”
Concerns about freedom of expression
- “If officials decide video by video which ones lose monetization, I think it could become arbitrary suppression of speech.”
- “I think it's wrong to leave misreporting by newspapers, weekly magazines and TV alone and only tighten the screws on social media.”
- “Even if they can't delete posts, it feels like we've entered a stage where the state intervenes through the flow of money, and that worries me.”
Posts are paraphrased, not quoted, and individual accounts are not named.
3. Where things stand
Where they agree
- Measures are needed against the spread of disinformation and defamation in elections.
- The state should not demand the deletion of individual posts.
Where they disagree
- Is it acceptable to leave measures such as suspending monetization as “recommendations” left to the operators?
- Will leaving the judgment of what “may harm the fairness of elections” to private companies chill even legitimate criticism?
What to watch
- The results of the public comment period until November 24, and the formal decision within the year.
- Which measures each company chooses before the nationwide local elections, and how it publishes the status of their implementation.
- Whether the obligation to label AI-created images and videos is followed in actual elections.
MIC's draft guidelines give large social media operators concrete examples of measures against disinformation, and suspending monetization is one of them. It is not a system in which the government has posts deleted or officials decide which videos lose monetization. Operators decide which measures to take, and there are no penalties over the content of those measures, but the obligation to publish the status of their implementation comes with recommendations, orders and penalties. Those who say countermeasures should be strengthened believe that fair elections cannot be protected unless the system that lets people profit from false rumors is stopped, and that leaving it to the operators is not enough. Those worried about freedom of expression believe that if application spreads while the line remains vague, even legitimate criticism could be chilled, leading to intervention in speech.